Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GLASGOW CORPORATION (WORKS ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Glasgow Corporation (Works etc.).

To be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (MELTON MOWBRAY AND SHEFFIELD) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Consultative Clinics (Elderly Persons)

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to increase the number of consultative clinics for the elderly in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): Specialist clinical services, including these for the elderly, are the responsibility of regional hospital boards who decide from their knowledge of needs and priorities how these services should be deployed or extended. The expanding health centre programme will provide opportunities for the development of special clinics where old people can receive medical advice.

Mr. Mackenzie: As the Government have indicated in the public spending paper their intention to increase the number of geriatric beds in hospitals, would it not be wiser to consider doing an exercise on consultative health clinics for the elderly to save the institutionalising of so many people, particularly in the west of Scotland?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, but he will appreciate that progress depends upon the health centre programme. Here we have some very good news to report. As he may know, 17 health centres are in operation at present, 11 are under construction and 60 are at various stages of planning, including, I am glad to say, one at Rutherglen.

Jordanhill College School

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for the future of Jordanhill College School.

Mr. Edward Taylor: My right hon. Friend is consulting further with the governing body of the college about the school's function and its future.

Mr. Galbraith: Is not my hon. Friend aware of the acute worry which the long delay in deciding the future of the school is causing in the area which I represent? Why does not he set this worry at rest by simply allowing the school, which is held in high esteem, to continue its good work, as it did before the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) interfered?

Mr. Taylor: I am well aware of the feeling of the parents in this matter, and I am anxious that the issue should be resolved as soon as possible. It is because I recognise the valuable contribution that the school has made to education in Glasgow that I regard it as specially important that the right decision should be taken.

Council Houses (Sale)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities have now indicated a willingness to sell council houses; and whether he will keep statistics on a quarterly basis of the total number sold.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Since my circular was sent last July, nine have already applied for consent to sales. Ten others are considering offering houses for sale to sitting tenants. I will keep a record of the number of houses sold.

Mr. Hamilton: I am very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman alive and well, and present. Does not he recognise that this agreeably small number shows the complete irrelevance of this policy as a solution to the housing problem in Scotland? Will not he drop the nonsense?

Mr. Campbell: It is at present much too early to judge. I have already given approval in three months to nearly three times the number of houses that were sold in the last three years of the Labour Government.

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give encouragement to local authorities to sell council houses to those who wish to buy them.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have already told local authorities that they should feel free to sell houses to sitting tenants who wish to buy them, and I hope they will give the most serious consideration to the advantages of selling. For my part I am ready to consent to their doing so unless there are special reasons for refusing.

Earl of Dalkeith: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that if this scheme snowballs successfully it will be a very considerable advantage to local authority housing accounts and will enable local authorities to do a good deal more to help those individuals who need help most?

Mr. Campbell: Yes. As my noble Friend has pointed out, where cash is available to be paid it can help a local authority to provide for those who are waiting on the housing list while the tenant remains in the original house as an owner-occupier.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Before we get bogged down in party warfare on this issue, would the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that since demand by the occupiers is likely to be greatest in high-amenity areas, the social consequences

for the larger authorities could perhaps be costly at the end of the day, and, as money is the only argument which can influence hon. Members opposite, will he at least give this due consideration?

Mr. Campbell: Certainly, if that were to happen, I would take this into consideration, with any other considerations, too. As I have made clear, every case in Scotland has to be considered on its merits and must have the Secretary of State's approval.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Would the Secretary of State try to explain to us what this encouragement of selling council houses will do to provide houses? This is the problem. Would he not agree that, rather than waste time selling houses, he should be chasing local authorities, particularly those controlled by his hon. Friends outside this House, to get on with the house-building programme?

Mr. Campbell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not realise from my answer to the first Supplementary that when money is provided by the sale of a house, that money is extra, additional, and available for providing accommodation to someone who is waiting on the housing list. So it is an additional resource. This operation does not conflict with the building of new houses, or the improvement of houses. In fact, it means that a local authority has less to do in management, repairs and the running of the house which has been sold, and can concentrate on the main problems in front of it, such as the one my hon. Friend pointed out.

Grant-Aided Schools

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement about the future of the grant-aided schools in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Government will continue to support these schools. I am examining their financial situation but I am not yet in a position to make a more detailed statement.

Mr. MacArthur: None the less, will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance that the Government will do everything possible to encourage these schools and so protect their fine and continuing contribution to Scottish education?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, I can give that assurance.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Secretary of State aware of the gross inequalities between grant-aided and education authority schools in Scotland? Is he further aware that recently the three promotion classes in Burntisland primary school have been increased to more than 40 pupils per teacher compared with 28 per teacher in the grant-aided George Watt College in Edinburgh? What action will he take to remove this gross injustice from Scottish education?

Mr. Campbell: I do not accept the general remarks of the hon. Gentleman. I am fully aware of the situation resulting from the freezing of grants by the last Government, and the whole question is being considered.

School-leaving Age

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that adequate preparations have been made for the raising of the school-leaving age in 1972–73; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Good progress has been made generally with the provision of additional accommodation but some education authorities have made representations which my right hon. Friend is considering about the amount of their school building allocations. On present forecasts the overall pupil/teacher ratio in 1973–74 will be 18·1 to 1, compared with 17 to 1 at present. But there will be serious staffing difficulties in parts of the West of Scotland and my right hon. Friend intends to do all he can to ensure effective deployment of teaching resources.

Mr. MacArthur: Is my hon. Friend aware that the previous Administration made inadequate preparations for the raising of the school leaving age? Does he accept that there will be a shortage of 1,800 secondary school teachers even before that critical year and that the previous Government's complacent assurances about school building were ill-founded?

Mr. Taylor: I think that this is a matter. The problem of teacher shortage has been with us for many years. But I fully accept what my hon. Friend said

about the serious shortage of teachers. On a straightforward projection we forecast that there will be a shortage of 3,100 teachers in 1973–74 when the full impact of raising the school leaving age will be felt. Therefore, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the great seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves.

Mr. Buchan: If the hon. Gentleman is right about the seriousness of the problem, and in view of the inequalities which exist, would not the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend be better occupied dealing with this kind of problem than bringing forward, as their first Bill, a class and privilege-ridden piece of legislation? Surely it would be better to drop today's proceedings and to discuss the real problems in Scotland.

Mr. Taylor: I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends would concentrate on the real problems of education, instead of being blinded by ideology, we might make more progress.

Rural Schools (Closure)

Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will examine as a matter of urgency the effects of the continuing closure of rural schools on community life in the northeast of Scotland.

Mr. Edward Taylor: When a proposed school closure comes to my right hon. Friend for approval, he considers very carefully the contribution made by the school to the life of the community. But our first duty concerns the educational opportunities available to the children and there would have to be decisive evidence of the school's importance to the community before my right hon. Friend could consider requiring an authority to keep it open against their own judgment and against the children's educational interests.

Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: Is the Minister proposing any action on the recommendations of the Gaskin Report in respect of rural depopulation and the influence that these schools have on that subject?

Mr. Taylor: I think that this is a wider question on which it would be inappropriate for me to make a statement


at this stage. But my hon. Friend should bear in mind, as I am sure the whole House does, that people are more likely to remain in rural communities if the educational facilities available to their children are comparable with those elsewhere.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman consider, in conjunction with this question of closing rural schools, whether the criteria operated for the transport of children should be altered to take account of modern circumstances and the need to travel much greater distances?

Mr. Taylor: There is a later Question on the Order Paper about that matter, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the reply which I then give.

Whiteinch (Development)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Glasgow Chamber of Trade regarding comprehensive development of the Whiteinch area; and what reply he has sent.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): On behalf of the Glasgow Chamber the National Chamber of Trade have written to my right hon. Friend about the Whiteinch redevelopment. They have been told that the Government are reviewing the difficult problems of blight and compensation, and that we will be glad to consider any specific points put forward by the Chamber.

Mr. Galbraith: Is my hon. Friend aware that the specific point which is upsetting my constituents is the time being taken to pay compensation? If, instead of proceeding under the Highways Acts, the Corporation of Glasgow could be persuaded by my hon. Friend to proceed under the C.D.A. procedure, surely it would be possible to pay the compensation immediately and thus make good to the people who are suffering for the sake of the general welfare of the community?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. But there are no fewer than 28 C.D.A.s in the City of Glasgow. I certainly should have no ground for objecting to the present

order of selection of priorities made by Glasgow Corporation.

Geriatric Patients, Galloway

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra provision he is making for geriatric patients in Galloway consequent on the closing of Lauriston Hospital.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The hospital authorities are making available 18 additional geriatric beds at Lochmaben Hospital and are reviewing the availability of general practitioner beds at Castle Douglas and Newton Stewart Hospitals. Their aim is that so far as possible local people should be accommodated in the nearest convenient hospital having regard to their clinical condition.

Mr. Brewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that Lochmaben is a long way from this area and that a number of people, including the Medical Executive Council, are seriously disquieted about the lack of accommodation for old people in their areas? Will he rescind his decision until he has at least heard the views of the Medical Executive Council?

Mr. Taylor: The Medical Executive Council, to which reference has been made, like all the bodies consulted, did not object to the closure in principle. The discussions were not about the closure, but on the wider issue of the availability of beds for general practitioners in the area. While I am conscious of the strong representations made by my hon. Friend, I understand that the Secretary of State would not be prepared to reconsider this matter unless new circumstances arose of which we were not aware at the time of the decision.

Horticulture

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra costs have been incurred by the horticultural industry in Scotland since 1st January 1970; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Mick Buchanan-Smith): No precise figures are available, but as in agriculture generally there have been substantial increases since the beginning of the year.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does my hon. Friend agree that efficient horticultural producers in Scotland should be given the same protection for crops which are suitable for growing in Scotland as is given to the agricultural industry in the proposed levy system?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: While there is, as my hon. Friend knows, some measure of tariff and quota protection, it is the policy of the Government, like that of their predecessors, to reduce the horticultural industry's dependence on the tariff.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister give the House an indication of what representations have been made to him by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland relating to the dumping of horticultural produce by Eastern European countries?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. But, as he will appreciate, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence, I suggest that he puts the case to my right hon. Friend.

Highlands (New Industry)

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further steps he is taking to attract further industry to the Highlands of Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Besides the more effective combination of incentives for development areas now to be introduced, the Highlands and Islands Development Board is supplementing its continuous efforts to attract further industry by a comprehensive promotional campaign.

Mr. Gray: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give an assurance that the powers of the Highlands and Islands Development Board will in no way be interfered with?
Secondly, in view of recent Treasury announcements, will he give a further assurance that there is no suggestion of restricting monies available to the Board for development in the Highlands?

Mr. Campbell: The measures which have been announced in no way affect the status and powers of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Nor do

they affect the system of the provision of money for purposes for which the Board was set up.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he refused to entertain the proposal of the Highlands and Islands Development Board that it should be allowed freely to invest, without his approval, sums up to £100,000? Furthermore, will he not be so doctrinaire about the cash value of the grants and loans scheme of the Highlands and Islands Development Board in the Highlands as he has been in his support of the Government's policy for the rest of Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: All these matters are now for me, following the appointment of the new Board at the beginning of this month. Since I came into office at the end of June my main concern has been reappointing the Board, because most of its members' contracts were running out.

Mr. Ross: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the firms likely to be most quickly and worst hit by the changes from investment grants to depreciation and allowances are those in the new small industries moving into places like the Highlands? Has he not appreciated that all the evidence indicates that he ought to have fought and fought and fought against the application of this policy to Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman has not understood or even apparently discovered what the changes are. It is not simply a change from investment grants to a system of allowances and free depreciation in the development areas. Part of the change is to more extensive and larger grants under the Local Employment Acts. This is a large proportion of the replacement, particularly to assist the kind of firm, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, coming into an area because it is related to the provision of new jobs.

Mr. Ross: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman's shouting shows how uneasy he is about it. Will he consult the late Chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board whether he thought that it was more effective to leave the power with the Board to do it or to do it under the Local Employment Acts?

Mr. Campbell: I shall speak more softly to the right hon. Gentleman. I have been consulting a large number of persons concerned. There is no doubt, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that there were some projects for which an investment grant was a particularly suitable kind of assistance, but grants will still be available. Grants for development under the Local Employment Acts will be there, but in addition the tax allowance system will be there, too, to help many other firms which benefit from that.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: As industry and communications are so important in the Highlands, will my right hon. Friend impress upon his colleagues the need to keep open the Dingwall-Kyle of Lochalsh Railway?

Mr. Campbell: I have noted what my hon. Friend said.

House-building Grants

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider making the special house-building grants, presently available to crofters in the seven crofting counties, available to non-crofting residents in those counties who wish to build their own homes.

Mr. Younger: No, Sir. Non-crofting residents will benefit from the action my right hon. Friend will be taking to encourage home ownership throughout the country.

Mr. Gray: Would my hon. Friend be prepared to consider, in that event, the extension of the 100 per cent. mortgage facilities which are available to persons buying old properties to people building new houses in the crofting areas?

Mr. Younger: The local authoritties have power to do that but, as my hon. Friend knows, Ross and Cromarty has particularly difficult problems of housing. It has done exceptionally well in the provision of housing for industrial development, and I hope to meet the authority soon to discuss its problems.

Scottish Economic Planning Council

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the future rôle of the Scottish Economic Planning Council.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Council has met twice under my chairmanship and, in the light of these meetings, I am now considering its future rôle. I hope to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. Brewis: If my right hon. Friend continues the Council, will he see that by its composition and the work that it does, it is a more useful body than it was under the previous Government?

Mr. Campbell: As the proceedings of the Council were confidential, under arrangements made by the previous Government, I did not know what it did until I came into office. After consultations with the members of the Council, and following my own judgment, I shall in due course be making an announcement.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman says that he did not know what the Council did, but he was always very quick in his criticism of it in respect of the time that it sat and how long it sat. Can he say whether he discussed the recent changes in incentives with the Council?

Mr. Campbell: The whole question of what was likely to be the best combination of incentives has been discussed with the members of the Council during the course of proceedings in which I have taken part.
On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I never criticised the Council, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to quote any reference in HANSARD, or anything that I said in public to show that I did while I was in opposition. All that I was seeking was information. The only information that I received was about the number of times the Council sat, and the length of time for which it sat.

Monkland Canal, Airdrie

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will discuss with the appropriate owning public authorities the preparation of a scheme for the piping and infilling of the Monk-land Canal, Airdrie; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: A meeting took place with representatives of Airdrie and Coat-bridge Town Councils on 21st September


and Airdrie Town Council has since indicated that it would be prepared to co-operate with Coatbridge in a scheme for infilling the canal. At the town council's request, discussions are now proceeding with Lanark County Council to examine the possibility of incorporating the county section of the canal into the scheme.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that this is an unguarded stretch of a disused waterway, which is a serious life hazard to young children? Will he do his very best to prevail upon Lanark County Council to agree to a joint scheme for the piping and filling-in of this canal and the removing of this hazard from the lives of young people?

Mr. Younger: I am sure that the local authorities involved fully appreciate all the arguments, but the cost involved is heavy and it is right that they should take time carefully to weigh this against the benefits which may be expected to accrue. We for our part will continue to use our good offices to try to resolve any difficulties as quickly as possible.

Airdrie (General Hospital)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now give a definite date for the start of the new general hospital in Airdrie, due to start in early 1971; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The Western Regional Hospital Board hopes to start the construction of the new Airdrie District General Hospital as early as practicable in 1971. My right hon. Friend's Department is now examining the board's proposals for the final cost limit. This is a necessary preliminary to the invitation of tenders, and for this reason I am unable at the moment to give a more definite date for the start.

Mr. Dempsey: As most hospitals have been described by competent medical authorities as being half a century out of date, will the Minister realise that this is a very urgent project? Will he do his utmost to prevail upon those responsible to live up to the programme already decided upon and to have the hospital commenced in April of next year?

Mr. Taylor: It was only on 26th October that the board submitted to my De-

partment its proposals of the overall costs. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no unnecessary delay at our end.

House Building Programme

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for speeding up the house building programme.

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will now take to accelerate the house building programme in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The new policies and measures which were announced to the House last week are intended to provide a framework for achieving the best possible rate of building wherever there is a need to be met, and for promoting the improvement of existing houses.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that those policies, in so far as they have been expanded—they have not been expanded by him at all—by the Secretary of State for the Environment, are bound to lead to a reduction in the number of new houses built? Can the right hon. Gentleman now come clean to the House and say exactly what floor and what ceiling there is to the figure of proposed housing subsidy cuts?

Mr. Campbell: On the first point, the procedure followed last week was similar to that followed by the previous Government when, on 18th March of this year, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government made a statement on housing which covered Scotland as well as England, and in which he specifically referred to Scottish housing aspects.
On the second part, it is not a question of withdrawing subsidies. It is a question of directing them to where they are really needed.

Earl of Dalkeith: Will my right hon. Friend make urgent representations in the Cabinet and elsewhere to relieve the building industry of two iniquitous burdens and penalties, namely, S.E.T., which is costing it £19 million, and B.S.T., which is costing it £8 million, so that it can get on with the job of building houses and making fuller use of a large


number in the building industry who are at present out of work?

Mr. Campbell: I am aware of all that my hon. Friend has said. S.E.T. is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Government's attitude has been made clear. The second matter raised by my hon. Friend is a subject on which a White Paper has been issued, and on which I understand the House should have an opportunity of taking a decision in due course.

Mr. Eadie: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a great air of uncertainty in the minds of local authorities about the future housebuilding programme? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any details that we possess have been obtained not from this House, but through the medium of the Press? Can he tell the House what will be the scale of completion of houses in Scotland in 1972, 1973 and 1974?

Mr. Campbell: To answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question I should need to have the gift of second sight, which many of my constituents and others in the North of Scotland think I have, but to which I do not lay claim.—[Interruption.] I have made certain predictions in the past which, very strangely, came true at the appropriate times. I shall not, however, chance my arm on this.
On the question of uncertainty, if local authorities have any, they will soon find it ended in the consultations that we shall be having with them.

Mr. Ross: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to a statement, or a non-statement, by me about this, surely he appreciates that this was an occasion when we published a White Paper? Now we have no information at all about the Government's intentions in respect of the housebuilding programme and the effect which any proposals will have on local authorities. Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that between now and the publication of the details there is bound to be hesitancy on the part of local authorities, with the result that our record of achievements over the last three years, and again this year, of house-building completions will sink sadly, and we shall get the usual completions under the Tories going down year by year, with

the housing programme for Scotland once again sinking into misery?

Mr. Campbell: If the right hon. Gentleman will look up HANSARD of 18th March he will see that it was not a question of a White Paper, but a statement by the then Minister of Housing, during which he covered the situation in Scotland as well. On the same day a statement was issued by the then Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes), and that covered the Scottish situation and answered Scottish questions, too—the very same day. So I cannot see what the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend are complaining about, concerning the statement last week. On the second point, the question of completions and starts, as is shown by the records, a large drop in the starts of house building occurred many months before this Government came into office.

Secondary School Pupils (Free Bus Travel)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to decrease the mileage from three to two miles for qualifying for free bus travelling for pupils attending secondary schools.

Mr. Edward Taylor: No, Sir. Education authorities already have discretion under the statute to provide transport within the prescribed limit where they think that the circumstances warrant it and my right hon. Friend has had no representations from them for any change in the law.

Mr. Hamilton: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that many parents with three or four children attending secondary schools are finding it very difficult indeed to meet the increased bus fares which now prevail, and is he further aware that children who are aged over 15 have to pay the full fares? Would he not think that the Government should now attempt to do something about it and send out circulars to local authorities suggesting to them that it is Government policy to do as is suggested in my Question?

Mr. Taylor: I think it would be wrong to make a general change in the Statute, but I would again emphasise that local


authorities have a general discretion if they wish to provide free transport, irrespective of distance. Some authorities, admittedly, work rather strictly to the limits, but others operate with larger limits.

Mr. Brewis: Would it not help very much if the Government abolished B.S.T., which adds to the difficulties of children in the mornings?

Mr. Taylor: I think that that is a rather different question.

Unemployment

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is now taking to relieve unemployment in Scotland this winter.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: In addition to the increased measures of assistance under the Local Employment Acts which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 27th October I have decided, as I indicated in reply to the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) on 28th October, to accelerate over £1½ million of essential works for which I am responsible.—[Vol. 805, c. 150.]

Mr. Sillars: Would the Secretary of State for Scotland accept that most people in Scotland believe that that amount of aid is inadequate to meet the unemployment problem this winter? Would he also accept that employment levels ultimately reflect upon migration levels? Would he now take the opportunity of apologising to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for that puerile statement seeking to give to the Conservatives credit for the Labour Government's policies which reduced migration from Scotland over the last few years?

Mr. Campbell: I know of no such puerile statement and I know of nothing to withdraw, but this accelerated works programme for this winter is for Scotland only and we intend that it shall be effective in providing employment immediately during this winter.

Mr. Ross: Would the right hon. Gentleman give a very quick answer to this? The advanced programme for local authorities—is it to be 100 per cent. grant?

Mr. Campbell: These matters are being discussed—

Mr. Ross: Oh.

Mr. Campbell: —with the local authorities and I cannot at this stage, without notice, give the right hon. Gentleman the answer.

Mr. W. Baxter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a list of those projects which are to be put into operation and will he let me know whether any of them are in the County of Stirling?

Mr. Campbell: I will undertake to do that for the hon. Gentleman; but at least £1 million will be for the trunk road programme.

Primary School Building Programme

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what allocation of funds will now be made to the county of Midlothian to enable them to carry out their primary school building programme.

Mr. Edward Taylor: My right hon. Friend is at present considering representations for additional capital investment for primary and secondary school building from Midlothian and a number of other education authorities. He will also be consulting education authorities generally about the additional investment which is now being made available for the improvement of primary schools which will amount to £4 million.

Mr. Eadie: Has the hon. Gentleman read the debate on the mini-budget presented by his right hon. Friend? Does he not know that in that debate the question of the allocation of extra funds towards education was very seriously challenged and was not answered? Will the hon. Gentleman not realise that not only Midlothian but local education authorities all over Scotland are very concerned about this and that they want extra money not only for the primary but also for the post-primary education programmes?

Mr. Taylor: I am fully aware of what was said in the debate, but I think that, in fairness, the hon. Gentleman must at least admit that what education authorities are complaining of is the allocation given by the previous Government. Under the mini-budget we have £4 million extra for primary school building in


Scotland, and I think that the least that hon. Gentlemen opposite can do in these circumstances is to welcome the extra money for Scotland.

Mr. Ross: But if the situation is so serious, is not this a miserable sum, bearing in mind that the Government are taking £32 million from Scottish children in respect of meals and milk charges—£32 million over the four years? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we increased the allocation by £40 million at the end of four years? Surely he can do better than that!

Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. He must be aware that local authorities are hammering on the doors of the Scottish Office complaining about the inadequate sums allocated by the previous Government. This is new cash, extra cash, which will benefit Scotland.

Revaluation

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to delay proposed revaluation of properties in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: No, Sir.

Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there is in Scotland at the present time confusion and anxiety about the future prospects with revaluation. Since he and his Government have declared that they will be altering certain financial structures, does he not think it appropriate to listen to some of their very strong authoritative voices, and delay the issue of revaluation?

Mr. Campbell: No, Sir, this is a decision which has to be taken by the Government. Revaluation brings up to date a fair distribution of the rates between ratepayers in Scotland. The more up to date it is, the more likely it is to be fair between different ratepayers.

The Borders (District Hospital)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the light of plans for increased allocations for hospital building 1971 to 1975, he will now consider the representations of the South-East Regional Hospital Board and make an allocation to enable them

to commence the new district hospital for the Borders during this period.

Mr. Edward Taylor: An allocation has already been made to enable development to start on the site of the new district general hospital for the Borders. Any review arising from the increased allocations for hospital building is unlikely to provide for additional phases of this hospital to start in the programme announced on 20th April this year.

Mr. Steel: That reply will be received as rather disappointing. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that of the increased allocation announced by the Chancellor, none will go to the South-East Regional Hospital Board? He must know that the Board itself stated that if any extra money were available over what was already announced, this would be its first priority.

Mr. Taylor: I am sorry if I gave that impression: that is not the position. The position that I mentioned was that it would not be possible for additional phases of the hospital to start in the programme announced on 20th April this year. I do not want to give a general commitment. Clearly, the allocation of the extra money for hospital building is something that we still have to consider in detail.

Investment Incentives

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, following the Goverment's plans for changes in industrial investment incentives, he will make a statement about their likely effect in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: All the measures which were announced on 27th October by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are designed to produce an economic climate in which industry can grow again at a satisfactory rate, both in the United Kingdom as a whole and in Scotland.
As paragraph 15 of the White Paper on Investment Incentives made clear, it is estimated that the differential benefit provided to the development areas by free depreciation in conjunction with the additional Local Employment Acts grants and loans will be broadly equivalent to the present cost of the regional differential in the investment grants scheme.

Mr. Steel: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that depends on how one interprets the words "broadly equivalent" and that the experience in the Borders so far is that those firms which have come in and started from scratch, without having profits with which to offset depreciation allowances, have found the investment grants on the machinery most valuable, and that these are now being removed?

Mr. Campbell: The technical investment grant system will be removed, but grants for development will be increased under the Local Employment Acts. This is a misunderstanding which must be made clear. It is not a question of doing away with all grants: it is increasing more general grants. The investment grant system, for instance, did not apply to service industries. The fact that we have nearly 100,000 unemployed in Scotland at the moment means that some change was necessary. There could be no doubt about that. The new combination will be much more effective in producing results.

Mr. Buchan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason for these continual questions, not only here but by every economist and many industrialists throughout Scotland, is that they do not accept that the total resources will be what they were under the investment grant system? Secondly, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in an area like Scotland, the problems of the central valley and of his hon. Friends in the Highlands cannot be solved under a profit-based investment and that the entire shipbuilding industry and shipping industry are anxious about this ending of the basic investment grant situation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long questions and long answers cut out hon. Members who are anxious to put questions.

Mr. Campbell: I will give a short answer. Clearly, the hon. Member has not been listening to many of the comments from informed industrial and economic opinion in Scotland. Secondly, I must make it clear that the special free depreciation advantage in the development areas, if not used at the beginning on profits in the first year or two, is not lost but can be continued through the following years. This is rather different from the previous form.

Mr. Small: In the light of that answer, will the Secretary of State study in depth the speech made last night by the chairman of the Chamber of Shipping, Sir John Nicholson, and tell him of the alarm that this is causing on Clydeside, and give full attention to the matter of industrial incentives in terms of shipping and the effect that it will have on the Clyde?

Mr. Campbell: I have seen the newspaper reports about that speech, which was confined to the question of shipping and did not deal with shipbuilding.

Mr. Lawson: The Question asks about the likely effect of the changes. Will the right hon. Gentleman describe the efforts made to study this question—where the information was obtained, who was consulted and what has happened to the report of the inquiry, first mentioned by the Board of Trade in April, 1969, and subsequently taken over by the Minister of Technology, into this very question? Was that report used when the Department made up its mind on this question? Has it been shelved, or when will it be published?

Mr. Campbell: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the last three years. Over the period when we were in opposition, we carried out a vast amount of consultation. Many informed observers said that no Opposition had ever done so much work in preparation in this field. In our statements and in our election manifesto, we said that we would be replacing the investment grant system, which was widely criticised on both sides of the House and outside the House, by a system of tax allowances and increased and extensive use of the Local Employment Acts. So we have translated into action exactly what we said we would do.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if we get better value for money in Scotland in terms of jobs and new industries, the people of Scotland will be very pleased?

Mr. Campbell: I agree and I would like to add that the Highlands and Islands Development Board will find the new and more flexible system of much more advantage to it than the previous one.

German Industrialists (Incentives)

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring to the attention of German industrialists applying for consent to investment in Scotland the recent changes in Government policy on incentives to industry.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend intends to ensure that the new combination of incentives available to industrialists investing in Scotland is widely known in Germany and elsewhere.

Mr. Sillars: Is it true that the Under-Secretary of State himself flew over the Firth of Clyde with a group of German industrialists and pointed out the magnificent deep-water facilities of Hunterston? Would he now tell us whether this implies that a decision has been taken in relation to the development at Hunterston? Finally, if he brought back any of the waters of the Clyde, would he dab a little on the brow of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and cool that temper of his?

Mr. Younger: I did not fly over the Clyde myself, but I arranged for our visitors from Germany to do so. They were most impressed with what they saw. The other part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter which is under consideration, as he knows, by my right hon. Friend. I certainly cannot give any information on that at this time.

Health and Welfare Services (Expenditure)

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the additional £110 million to be spent by Her Majesty's Government between 1971 and 1975 on health and welfare services will be spent on Scotland; and how specifically he proposes to allocate this money.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: £11 million over the years 1971–72 to 1974–75. The additional expenditure will be directed to those parts of the services to whose improvement I attach priority, including, for example, services for the elderly and the mentally handicapped. My aim is to bring about improvements in these directions

both in the hospital services and through the local authority health and social work services and the voluntary organisations concerned in this field. I will shortly be having consultations to this end both with regional hospital board chairmen and, in the context of the rate support grant negotiations, with the local authority associations, as affecting their services.

Mr. Mackenzie: It will take me some time to work out the figures in my head, but it strikes me that we are not getting a particularly good deal out of this. We are getting this £11 million over the next five years. If the right hon. Gentleman allows for the fact that prices are rising very fast and that the £11 million clearly, at the end of that time, will not be worth all that much, what will we get in terms of actual hospital beds by 1975? How many additional health centres will we get by 1975? Will the right hon. Gentleman be quite specific about what we will see in real terms at the end of this period?

Mr. Campbell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to decide this—the announcement having been made only last week—before consulting those concerned, as I have said I will. One thing which is certain is that £11 million will be available in addition in Scotland to be used where it is most needed, particularly among the elderly and in facilities for the mentally handicapped.

Mr. Ross: If this is an additonal £11 million, can the right hon. Gentleman give me a simple figure? What will we be spending in 1975 on these services?

Mr. Campbell: I will give that figure, with notice.

Education (Expenditure)

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the sum announced in the Government's White Paper on public expenditure as increased expenditure on education is to be allocated to Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Taylor: About a tenth.

Mr. Sproat: Is my hon. Friend aware that this allocation will be very welcome in Scotland? Will he make particular efforts to speed up its use, as there are


still thousands of primary school children in part-time education in Scotland?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, Sir. I shall shortly be inviting authorities to submit their proposals for primary school improvement projects, and the £4 million will be allocated when they have been considered.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman's Answer is curious, because his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science declared that the education bill was to be cut by about 1 per cent. How can one-tenth of minus 1 per cent. add up to the kind of figures the hon. Gentleman gave his hon. Friend?

Mr. Taylor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that those are the figures, that £4 million extra will be available for the primary building programme.

School Meals

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of Scottish school children receiving school meals and of the increase in revenue from the proposed increase in charges.

Mr. Edward Taylor: About 375,000 children were taking school meals in January, 1970. Savings in public expenditure of about £7 million are expected in the four years 1971–75. These are net savings after allowance has been made for the increased number of children who will be entitled to free meals under the more generous conditions which we are introducing.

Mr. Douglas: Would not the Minister admit, in view of his previous Answer, that he is financing an increase in primary education expenditure out of the pockets of people whose children need school meals? Will he undertake to ensure that the very valuable school meal service, particularly in the rural communities, is taken up, by conducting sample, and if necessary comprehensive, surveys to ensure that young people who require good nutrition at school are not denied it because of the increased charges?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's point was very much in the Government's mind. We want to concentrate help on those who need it, and the plain fact is—there is no denying it—that under our new more generous arrangements a

higher proportion will be entitled to free school meals. We shall make every endeavour to make the facilities known.

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that children entitled to free school meals are not publicly identified.

Mr. Edward Taylor: This is a matter for the education authorities. They have, however, been advised on means of avoiding such identification, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the relevant Departmental circular.

Mr. Hamilton: While I thank the Minister for that reply, is he aware that the new Government's economic policy will bring further hardship to many people in Scotland and will mean that many children will require free meals? Will he make sure, within the power at his disposal, that children are in no way identified, and ensure that local authorities carry that out to the letter?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that our new measures will increase the facilities for free meals. Although it may be that the case that occasionally children receiving free meals are identified, I want to make it crystal-clear to the hon. Gentleman and the House that I deplore this and will take every action to make sure that my views and those of the Government are brought clearly to the attention of local authorities.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order. May I raise a point of order about a reply by the Secretary of State to a supplementary question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who was advised, when he asked about investment grants for Scotland, to put down a Question? I put down a Question to the Secretary of State some days ago about this very matter, and it was transferred to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Have we a right to question the Secretary of State on the matter, and can we get a reply if we put down a Question again?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I deprecate the raising of points of Order during Questions. I think that the hon. Gentleman could have raised it afterwards

Later—

Mr. Speaker: Reverting to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), I should explain that I cut in on the hon. Gentleman's remarks because Question Time was going rapidly, and it is good practice to raise points of order after Question Time. The position is that Ministers themselves decide to which Ministry a Question shall be allocated. If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with what has happened about a Question of his, the Ministers concerned will have heard his protest.

Local Employment Acts (Expenditure)

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the sum announced in the Government White Paper on Public Expenditure to be spent on infrastructure schemes under the Local Employment Acts is to be allocated to Scotland; and if he will give priority to the need for improved communications in the North-East.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The amount spent in Scotland will depend very largely upon the volume of work on the provision of basic services and the clearance of derelict land which local authorities undertake in support of industrial development in their areas. The hon Member can be sure that the needs of North-East Scotland will be very much in mind.

Mr. Sproat: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer and assure him that, whatever hon. Members opposite may say, the package of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend's clarification today are widely welcomed in the North-East of Scotland, where we are all certain that it will contribute to the area's long-term prosperity.

Mr. Campbell: I note that my hon. Friend is very discerning on the advantages of the new proposals for his area of Scotland.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman must be gifted with second sight, because none of us has any figures yet. How much was spent on infrastructure in Scotland last year under the Local Employment Act? How much will be spent next year

or will be made available for spending next year?

Mr. Campbell: If the right hon. Gentleman will put down Questions on that, I shall be able to give him the answers. But I can tell him that the total additional expenditure in the development areas under the new proposals is expected to be about £25 million.

Certificated Teacher (Dismissal)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland under what statutory authority a certificated teacher who was in legal employment at April, 1968, but who refused to apply for permission to teach from the General Teaching Council has been dismissed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Under the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 the appointment of a teacher is at the pleasure of the education authority. In employing teachers an authority must, however, comply with the provisions of the Schools (Scotland) Code 1956. These have, since 1st April, 1968, required that, for appointments other than temporary appointments in secondary and special schools, a teacher must be registered with the General Teaching Council.

Mr. Rankin: I recognise that, but is the Minister aware that a number—a small number, I agree—of teachers have written to me about the matter? They are men and women who have been certificated and have been in teaching for 10, 20 and sometimes 30 years, but they resented this process. Is it not wrong to force the process on those teachers when teachers are in such short supply?

Mr. Taylor: I should not be honest if I did not admit that any situation in which a qualified teacher finds himself not in employment is one which obviously causes us a great deal of concern. But I cannot hold out any hope of a major review or reorganisation of the law. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the position of such people is very much in our minds.

Mr. Sproat: Does my hon. Friend perhaps consider that if the Bill is finally passed to deduct levies at source that would remove one of the reasons why


teachers certificated before 1st April, 1968 should not be deemed to be registered, thus getting round the problem so rightly raised by the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Taylor: I cannot go into the complexities of the matter now. But I would again emphasise, as was so rightly emphasised by my predecessors, that here there is no question of joining an organisation. It is simply a matter of registering with a professional council, and perhaps some of those who have taken objection may on reflection reconsider their position.

Glasgow-Edinburgh Motorway

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland for how long the motorway between Glasgow and Edinburgh has been under construction; and when it will be completed.

Mr. Younger: Construction of the motorway section of the Glasgow to Edinburgh trunk road began in September, 1963, and my right hon. Friend will be opening the final length of it at the end of this month.

Mr. Rankin: At least that is one cheery little note from the Front Bench opposite. But will the M6, which is proceeding so smoothly and efficiently on the English side of the border, soon show signs of existence on the Scottish side?

Mr. Younger: The question of the M6 is entirely different from that of the M8, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that work is proceeding on joining up the M6 and the M74, and we see no reason why it should slowing down.

Fowl Pest

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many outbreaks of fowl pest there have been in Scotland; what actions are being taken to curtail the disease; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There have been five recent cases of fowl pest in Scotland, three primary outbreaks and two secondary.
Movement restrictions were placed on the premises concerned and the birds slaughtered.
The last case was confirmed on 29th October: there have been no more outbreaks.

Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the seriousness of the disease, will my hon. Friend consider giving the widest possible publicity to the means by which it is spread, to cut down its incidence?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. Steps have been taken to alert poultry keepers to the risks of infection, particularly from improperly-treated swill. I cannot emphasise too strongly how necessary it is that poultry-keepers observe these elementary precautions.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Unified Grading Structure

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the progress towards a unified grading structure.

The Parliamentary Secretary for the Civil Service (Mr. David Howell): The Official and Staff Sides are together considering the results of a study on the structure at the top of the Civil Service. The study of the levels immediately below and work on the three interim mergers of various groups of classes is also making considerable progress.

Mr. Sheldon: Is it the Government's intention to adhere to the timetable for the merger of the administrative, executive and clerical staffs? Can the scientific and works groups be brought into the merger? There is some disquiet amongst these people that in this matter they are getting the thick end of the stick and that their opportunities for promotion are nowhere near as good as they are for those in the administrative class.

Mr. Howell: It is the intention to try to adhere to the timetable for the merger of the administrative, executive and clerical groups; that is, 1st January, 1971. As to the other groups mentioned, it is hoped to make rapid progress, but it depends on consultations and on making the proper arrangements. We are hoping to get on with this.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING REGULATIONS

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. TUGENDHAT to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning Authorities in Greater London) Regulations 1965 and 1967 were not laid before Parliament until 10th November, 1970.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I will, with permission, answer Written Question No. 69 which stands on today's Order Paper.
I regret to inform the House that through a most unfortunate oversight the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning Authorities in Greater London) Regulations made in 1965 and 1967 were not at that time laid before Parliament before coming into operation as required by the enabling legislation.
These Regulations, which govern the division of responsibility for development control between the G.L.C. and the London Borough Councils, were laid yesterday in their original form.
I am today introducing an Indemnity Bill to deal with the legal consequences of the failure to lay the Regulations. There is the further complication that inadvertently the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, prospectively repeals the requirements to lay Regulations of this kind before Parliament, though no day has been appointed for the coming into force of this repeal. It is clearly right that regulations of this importance should be subject to a negative resolution in both Houses. This point is also put right in the Indemnity Bill.

Mr. Crosland: While I have no personal knowledge of what is evidently a most complicated question—brought to light, no doubt, by Lord Rothschild and his new unit—may I tell the Secretary of State that it seems to me that he is going about the matter in an entirely correct manner, and will have the wholehearted co-operation of the Opposition?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will always comment in similar fashion on all the statements I may make.

Mr. Tugendhat: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his attention to the affairs of Greater London. Is he aware that this attention is much appreciated by Greater London and by individual boroughs?

H.M.S. "ARK ROYAL" AND SOVIET DESTROYER (COLLISION)

Mr. George Thomson: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the collision between the "Ark Royal" and the Soviet naval vessel in the Mediterranean.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): H.M.S. "Ark Royal" together with other Royal Navy and Royal Air Force forces is taking part in a national exercise being held in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Last Monday night she was in open waters between Malta and Crete and was engaged in night flying exercises. She had begun launching her aircraft and was displaying the appropriate internationally recognised lights which showed that she could not easily manoeuvre.
After the launch of the first aircraft a Soviet Kotlin class destroyer approached the "Ark Royal" on a collision course from the starboard bow. The carrier took what avoiding action she could and put her engines at full astern but she was unable to miss the Soviet vessel, whose port quarter struck the "Ark Royal's" port bow.
The "Ark Royal" immediately stopped her night flying exercise and diverted the aircraft already airborne so that she and her accompanying frigate, H.M.S. "Yarmouth", could undertake, with Russian vessels, a search for Russian crew members who were understood to be in the water. Although some were picked up by the "Ark Royal" and "Yarmouth", and returned to their ship, I regret that two are still believed to be missing. Only minor damage was suffered by the "Ark Royal" and she had no casualties.
In accordance with normal practice, a naval Board of Inquiry will be convened to consider all the circumstances of the collision. Meanwhile, appropriate representations will be made about the incident to the Soviet Government.
It is not uncommon for Soviet vessels to keep close company with ships of the Royal Navy which are engaged on training and exercises. This particular incident reflects the dangers of this practice, and we trust that the Soviet naval authorities will take full account of it in their future deployment.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that we thank him for that statement, and associate ourselves with the regret that he has just expressed that what ought to have been a peaceful naval exercise has resulted in loss of life? Is he aware that there will be widespread agreement with what he has just said about the dangers that are obviously inherent in the kind of close shadowing techniques at present being operated by the Soviet Fleet; and will he consult his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about taking some international action to minimise these dangers in the future?
Can the Minister tell us whether the damage to the "Ark Royal" will lead to the vessel being out of operation for any period of time and, if so, for what period of time?

Lord Balniel: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. We are signatories of the international regulations for the prevention of collisions at sea, and strict adherence to these is necessary to avoid such incidents as this. It is not likely that the "Ark Royal" will have to be put in dock.

Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Russians have been playing a dangerous game of hide-and-seek for a number of years? Before British lives are lost, will he ask the Russians now to respect the usual international courtesies, and keep clear of naval exercises?

Lord Balniel: I agree with my hon. Friend. Dangerous situations have arisen in this way in the past, and Soviet vessels have been warned of the dangers they are creating by this kind of action.

Mr. Rankin: As the Mediterranean seems to be a favourite water for one or two countries to carry out manoeuvres, and in view of the dangers evident in this area, would it not be better to seek wider oceans where there are fewer

chances for accidents to take place? Have not the Americans a bigger navy than anyone else manœuvring in the Mediterranean? It could be possible for the area to become overcrowded—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be brief.

Mr. Rankin: It could become overcrowded, because other nations than those already manoeuvring there could join in with their manœuvres. Would it not be better—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief. Lord Balniel.

Lord Balniel: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but we have responsibilities under N.A.T.O. within the Mediterranean area, and we intend to fulfil them.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does the Minister realise that those of us who have been subjected for many years to this sort of snooping and harassment by Soviet forces have felt that such an incident as this would become inevitable in the long run? Does he agree that this regrettable incident highlights the need for adequate sea and air forces for the surveillance of all our maritime trade routes?

Lord Balniel: I find myself in complete agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister expect that evidence from the Russian side will be forthcoming at the naval tribunal of inquiry? Will the tribunal make its findings public?

Lord Balniel: We do not publish the outcome of naval tribunals' reports. I doubt whether that would be forthcoming.

Dr. Bennett: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that the Russian vessel approached the "Ark Royal" from ahead? If so, is not this a very curious form of shadowing?

Lord Balniel: The Russian destroyer approached from starboard, and approached the "Ark Royal" immediately after the first aircraft had left the deck of the "Ark Royal".

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (EXPENDITURE)

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about how the Government propose to spend the English share of the extra £110 million which they have planned to make available to the National Health Service over the next four years.
For the next year, 1971–72, the resources available for the hospital and local health and welfare services will now be about £75 million more, at constant prices, than during the present financial year, an increase of 6 per cent. overall, compared with 4·7 per cent. envisaged in the plans of the previous Administration; and with an increase of 4·3 per cent. during 1969–70. This means that it will be possible not only to continue the normal development of the services—building programmes, improved treatment and diagnostic services, more staff in hospitals and the community—but also to speed progress in vulnerable sectors such as the care of the mentally handicapped, mentally ill and the elderly.
Hospital and local authorities are expected to spend at least £100 million over the next four years on improved services for the mentally handicapped over and above present running expenditure. Of this about £40 million will come from the £110 million.
Another area for expansion is the improvement of hospital and local authority services for old people and for the mentally ill. Nearly £300 million additional to present running expenditure will be spent over the next four years on improved services, of which about £40 million will be new money from the £110 million.
I hope to make a statement soon on the Government's intentions in respect of family planning. We need to improve the accident and emergency services. A review of what should be done is under way, and when it is complete I shall be issuing further guidance. Meanwhile, boards will be expected to aim at faster progress out of the increased allocations. I am setting aside an extra £3 million over the next four years for special units for the young chronic sick, and an extra £2 million to improve facilities and

counsel for alcoholics. The whole problem of alcoholism is to be reviewed.
The Government will encourage high quality national voluntary services. About half a million pounds will be available next year in support of voluntary effort for the National Health Service—roughly twice as much as this year. Further announcements will be made from time to time about developments in other special areas of the service.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: We on this side of the House very much welcome the additional help that the right hon. Gentleman will provide, particularly for the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. I should, however, like to ask him four brief questions, as in some ways this is a rather obscure statement.
First, will he tell us how the division is to lie between hospital services, for which he is directly responsible, and local authority services, for which he is only indirectly responsible, in the fields first of the mentally handicapped and secondly of the mentally ill? The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he said that £40 million of new money would come forward for both categories, but that the total sum of additional money is very much greater than that.
Secondly, arising from that, does this depend in any way upon the outcome of rate support grant negotiations and upon the willingness of local authorities to increase their rates for these purposes?
Thirdly, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take particular steps to increase staffing, in particular in hospitals for the mentally handicapped? He will know that plans within his Department when he came into it allowed for £87 million more to be spent in the next four years, and I should like specifically to ask him about the additional staffing for these very understaffed hospitals.
Fourthly, in his view, is the provision of units for the young chronic sick, which we welcome as an earnest of the Government's intention to carry out this important Act, sufficient to enable all the young chronic sick to be dealt with outside geriatric wards within a four year period?

Sir K. Joseph: I welcome the hon. Lady's words of courtesy at the beginning. The answers to her four questions I will give briefly.
The share between hospital and local authority expenditure in the fields she mentioned will vary round about the fifty-fifty mark. Some will be just under 50 per cent. hospital and just over 50 per cent. local authority, and some will be the other way.
The announcement which I have made is not dependent on the outcome of the rate support grant negotiations. The money embodied is incorporated in the money already proposed for the rate support grant, although the use to which the local authorities put their money is ultimately in their hands.
The staffing in hospitals for the mentally handicapped will certainly benefit from the extra resources.
Not all the young chronic sick will be rescued from general hospital wards by what we propose, although a big step will be taken in that direction.

Mrs. Knight: How will my right hon. Friend's proposals help the isolated elderly? Will he bear in mind the strong advisability of giving more financial help to provide telephones for them?

Sir K. Joseph: I hope that local authorities, by their own efforts and with our help, will be able to expand the home help service, so far as the women are available where they are needed, and also the meals on wheels service, Part III accommodation, day centres and clubs for the elderly.

Mr. Crossman: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement. Will he publish a White Paper on the mentally handicapped in the near future, and will he give us a little more information about the rate support grant? As I understand it, he said that the money was not dependent on the grant but that the local authorities would be free either to spend it or not. That means that it is extremely dependent on the total amount of grant. What assurance has he that the grant will not be so severely cut back that the local authorities will be unable to spend £40 million on this because there will be higher priorities for it?

Sir Keith Joseph: There will be guidance on policy on the mentally handicapped which will be issued by the Government probably in the early spring. On the rate support grant, I meant to

say that the money embodied in my statement has been offered by the Government to the local authorities. It is not subject to any cut.

Sir D. Renton: Is not my right hon. Friend's statement further evidence of the Government's ability to improve the social services while reducing Government expenditure and taxation, which our opponents at election time said was impossible? Will my right hon. Friend say what are his intentions about further research into mental health and the causes and cure of mental illness and disease?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, rapidly rising expenditure on research in mental health has been included in our budget for the next four years.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's reference to expenditure on special units for the young chronic sick, but how long will it be before we can say that geriatric wards are used only for geriatric patients?
Secondly, under the heading of local authority expenditure, can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the young disabled who are in Part III accommodation? Will there be enough money to provide special units for the young disabled who far too often are in Part III accommodation for the very elderly managed by local authorities?

Sir K. Joseph: Further progress with the young chronic sick will depend upon even more resources that I shall try to get for the National Health Service. I shall be discussing the subject of the young disabled in local authority accommodation, among other subjects, with the local authorities.

Mr. John Wells: Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about day centres, particularly for those suffering from mental illness? Can he say anything about the provision of joint registrar places between provincial hospitals and the great London teaching hospitals? This would improve the status of the provincial hospitals and create a generally improved atmosphere which, as he knows, is of particular importance in the southeastern area?

Sir K. Joseph: While both questions sound eminently sensible, I would not be


able to give other than a very general answer without notice.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: On the rate support grant point, which admittedly is always complicated, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the ability or willingness of local authorities to spend the money, as is suggested in the statement that they should, is totally independent of the rate support grant settlement?

Sir K. Joseph: I would rather put it in another way about which I am absolutely certain. The local authority element coming from the Government is that already offered by the Government in the negotiations now going on. I merely reserve formally the right of local authorities to make their final choices between the different services. But there is no reason for me to cast any doubt upon the figures I have given for the local government contribution. There always remains the difficulty in some areas of getting enough home helps, for instance, to spend the money which local government intends to spend.

Dr. Trafford: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House in what way his statement will affect general practitioners and dentists?

Sir K. Joseph: In addition to the £75 million of extra resources for the hospital and local authority health and welfare services, there will be about £14 million for the family practitioner, pharmaceutical and dentist services.

Dr. Summerskill: In considering Health Service expenditure, will the right hon. Gentleman promote the concept of preventive medicine and consider putting far more money into occupational health and prevention of industrial accidents and industrial diseases where real savings can be made?

Sir K. Joseph: The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question is "Certainly, yes." I should like to reserve judgment about the methods of encouraging preventive medicine.

Dame Irene Ward: It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could at some time let us know the weaknesses in the services which will be helped by

his new plan in relation to the different regions. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when one is trying to help in one's region, it is very difficult to know whether the services of a particular region are better or worse than those in other regions. In other words, it would be a good thing if the House could be better informed over the whole plan so that we might be able to help the Minister in the tasks which he has in mind.

Sir K. Joseph: That suggestion is eminently sensible and I should like to consider how we can best take advantage of it.

Mr. Pavitt: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that over the last four years of economic difficulty the last Administration found £543 million—E136 million for each year'? Does the £27 million a year for each of the next four years to which he refers mean an addition above the 3 per cent. annual rise over ordinary hospital administrative expenses? Will he ensure that, as a result of the £2 million cut last week in research, there is no hindrance of research into mental illness and the mentally handicapped?

Sir K. Joseph: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no cut in that side of research. I did not come to the House prepared to compare precise figures, but I can assure hon. Members that a 6 per cent. increase in resources for the hospital and local authority health and welfare services represents a better performance than the performance in any of the last few years.

Miss Fookes: Will my right hon. Friend tell us more precisely how he will allocate the extra £500,000 to the voluntary services?

Sir K. Joseph: This is a doubled allocation for the coming year and it will go to encourage services of quality which offer new provision and new ways of handling existing problems or enable existing voluntary bodies to expand their efforts in support of the Health Service.

Mr. Marsh: What proportion of the increase takes into account the effect on the National Health Service of the recent wage increase for local government workers?

Sir K. Joseph: These increases are in real terms, in terms of resources—that is,


at constant prices—and are in comparison with the expenditure last year on the same price level. They do not take account of changing prices. They are a measurement of resources and not of expenditure.

Mr. MacArthur: Is expenditure on improved services in Scotland included in my right hon. Friend's very welcome statement? If not, can he say what the figures for Scotland will be?

Sir K. Joseph: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave an Answer this afternoon on how he proposes to use his extra resources.

Mr. Denis Howell: Reverting to the question about voluntary activity in hospitals, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be widely welcomed by organisations like the Young Volunteer Force Foundation, but, notwithstanding the circular sent out by the Labour Administration, there is still a great deal of inborn resistance in hospitals particularly to finding jobs for volunteers to do? What steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to deal with that situation? Also, will he give some more detailed information about who can qualify to receive the £500,000 he is producing?

Sir K. Joseph: National voluntary services will qualify, and the more successful voluntary service is, the more the barriers will be eliminated.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in terms of cost-effectiveness any increase in public expenditure on family planning services will far outweigh the cost which is likely to fall on the nation from chronic over-population in the predictable future?

Sir K. Joseph: I note my hon. Friend's comment.

Mr. Bob Brown: Has the Secretary of State determined the extra allocation for the northern regional hospital boards? As he accepts the desirability of expenditure on preventive medicine, will he investigate the number of local authorities which have cut back on the home help service?

Sir K. Joseph: No. We are shortly to discuss the allocation between regions with the regional hospital boards.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied about present medical thinking on the proper treatment of mentally handicapped children? Will the extra money which is to be given be spent on treatment as opposed to merely providing beds in hospitals for children, as has happened so often in the past?

Sir K. Joseph: A great deal of knowledge which has accumulated over the last decade is still to be put into practice for the good of the public, and that we shall try to do.

Mr. William Price: Is the Secretary of State aware that, even when money is available, the amount of time taken in planning, designing and building hospital projects is ludicrously long? Will he look at the possibility of speeding up the process?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ben Ford: When considering the allocation of the extra expenditure in relation to the hospital building programme, will the right hon. Gentleman take urgent steps to finalise the programme for the City of Bradford, which has suffered from an unfortunate delay?

Sir K. Joseph: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a considerable dilemma facing my Department in deciding what to do in response to Bradford's needs.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the allocation which he has just announced is entirely unconnected with the rate support grant negotiations which are taking place this month and that the domestic element of the rate support grant will be increased, as in the previous four years?

Sir K. Joseph: It is entirely unconnected. The element which stems from this year's rate support grant negotiations is not in dispute.

ROLLS-ROYCE

The Minister of Aviation Supply (Mr. Frederick Corfield): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about Rolls-Royce.
In 1968, the previous Administration made arrangements to provide launching aid up to £47 million to Rolls-Royce


Limited for its RB211-22 engine, which had been ordered for the Lockheed Trijet aircraft. The aid was intended to cover, after certain adjustments, 70 per cent. of the estimated launching cost of £65 million. This figure was later revised to £75 million without any increase in launching aid.
Her Majesty's Government have now been informed that the cost of launching the engine is estimated to have risen to £135 million. Recognising the magnitude and importance of this programme, the Government have decided to join with the company and its bankers in meeting the increased cost. For their part, the Government will make further provision for launching aid at the existing rate of 70 per cent. Subject to a further check of the figures by independent accountants, to satisfactory contractual arrangements, and to limitation for a period of any distribution on the company's ordinary share capital, the additional launching aid will be 70 per cent. of the increase cost over £75 million up to a maximum of £42 million, thus making a total of up to £89 million towards the cost of launching this engine. Rolls-Royce will pay my Department an appropriate levy on all engine sales. The banks for their part will be making a further £18 million available. No further assistance will be provided by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation beyond the £10 million which was committed by it under the previous Administration.
Rolls-Royce is itself making its half-yearly statement today in which it is announcing changes in the company's management.
The House, I trust, will join me in expressing the hope that this important development programme can now be successfully completed.

Mr. Benn: I am sure the whole House wants Rolls-Royce and its workers to succeed. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions? First, £47 million was put into this engine. Was the I.R.C. involved in the negotiations for the provision of this further aid? What is the total Government commitment to Rolls-Royce? Are the Government guaranteeing in any way the £18 million to be provided by the banks? Were the management changes to be announced

today a condition for the launching aid? What limitation on Rolls-Royce dividends are the Government insisting upon? How many engines will have to be sold for the Government to get their money back? Finally, does not the right hon. Gentleman's statement make an absolute nonsense of everything that has been said by his right hon. Friend about the abolition of I.R.C., which was monitoring the work of Rolls-Royce, and also about the lame ducks, since what the Government have done in giving this £42 million today is to brand one of our great companies worldwide as a lame duck in a subsidised soft morass of competition.

Mr. Corfield: The duck was not exactly sound when the right hon. Gentleman left it, but I will try to answer his questions without making a statement as long as the questions. As regards the I.R.C., the full impact of these costs was not available to my Department till August, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, he invited the I.R.C. to investigate as early as about a year ago. The total under this launching programme, as I said in my statement, is £89 million. The £18 million put forward by the banks is in no way secured. The change of management was, of course, discussed with my Department, but I think it would be going too far to say that it was a condition. The dividend limitation which I have agreed is that there shall be no more than nominal dividends for at least the next following three years, that is, up to the financial year ending March, 1973. The number of engines on which the launching aid is based is 225 aircraft—the right hon. Gentleman will know that one allows an extra 0·6 of an engine per aircraft for spares—plus 100 engines for marine and other purposes.
On the right hon. Gentleman's last remark, I simply remind him that his Administration, and Administrations before his and since, have always recognised the special characteristics of the aerospace industries, and the basis of the policy for launching aid which has nothing whatever to do with the points he made.

Mr. Onslow: Would my right hon. Friend say what effect his statement will have on the development by Rolls-Royce of the RB211-61 engine?

Mr. Corfield: That is an entirely different question. It will be considered in connection with the Government's decision on the airbuses, which is under consideration and about which I can make no statement today.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many taxpayers and members of the House will want to know why, over a period of two years, the launching costs have risen from £65 million to £75 million, to £135 million? We should like some indication that we are not to have a further statement in a year or 18 months telling us that costs have risen still more. Consequently, since an enormous amount of taxpayers' money is, I understand, being granted to this firm, is there any reason why the taxpayer should not have a stake in it? Is there any reason why, for example, we should not take debenture stock convertible into equities?

Mr. Corfield: In regard to the escalation, I said that the full impact was not apparent to my Department until the end of August, so the right hon. Gentleman can draw his own conclusion as to under which Administration the greater part of it took place. What is abundantly clear is that this arises from a failure to estimate to the full the technological difficulties involved in this advanced engine, and therefore the cost. About 15 per cent. is represented by escalation of wage costs and so on, and the balance by the difficulties of overcoming unforeseen technical problems. Whether or not they should have been foreseen is another matter. As regards the taxpayer's position, we have taken the view that it is much sounder to base our contribution in present circumstances on launching aid rather than on equity capital.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much we on this side welcome his statement for its courage and faith in Britain's advanced technological future; how much we welcome his belief that British exports, such as power plants for the Lockheed 1011, should be encouraged, and how vital it is that imports of extremely expensive aero-engines in the future should be frustrated?

Mr. Corfield: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. It is relevant to remember that hitherto Rolls-Royce has

had a remarkable record, both nationally and internationally, that Rolls-Royce engines are flying in 208 different airlines and 80 different air forces, and that Rolls-Royce is now engaged in some 10 major collaborative efforts, and it is one of our leading export earners. It would be a grave mistake if we were to allow these difficulties entirely to overshadow the record of the past.

Mr. Palmer: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a particularly expensive way of helping this lame duck, which might as well now come into full public ownership? Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any upper limit has been set in discussions with the company for this expenditure?

Mr. Corfield: I have absolutely no doubt that the suggestion put forward by the hon. Gentleman would be by far the most expensive way of overcoming this particular problem. As regards an upper limit I hope that those who understand this industry will appreciate that in embarking upon these advanced projects there can be no absolute guarantee. But these figures have been checked by my Department. They will be checked by an independent accountant, which I believe the magnitude of the figures justifies. We have every reason to believe that the overcoming of the technical difficulties is well within the competence of this company.

Mr. McMaster: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the enormous subsidies and help which our principal foreign competitors both in the United States and in Russia receive through substantial defence and missile programmes, and of the importance for this country of remaining in the forefront of technological developments, in spite of the cold water thrown on the subject by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), the former Minister of Technology. Will he take it that the House welcomes the assistance given to Rolls-Royce in these circumstances?

Mr. Corfield: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is relevant to remind the House that the rival engine, the General Electric CF6, was a development from a military engine required for the Lockheed C5A, which, of course, makes life a great deal easier.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am sure that no one on this side would wish to see the collapse of this famous British company, but may we know how long this process is to go on under a Conservative Administration of pouring public money into private enterprise without any corresponding degree of public control? Is not this a vital principle for all democratic representatives in this House, not only on this side but on the Conservative benches, too? In arranging the terms of this massive loan to Rolls-Royce Limited, have the Government arranged for any Government-sponsored directors to go on the board to keep oversight on the public interest involved?

Mr. Corfield: I stress that the principal purpose of this arrangement is to ensure the success of the RB211–22 engine, to ensure that Rolls-Royce is in a position to fulfil its contract with Lockheed. As regards the question of a Government director, the hon. Gentleman will recall that the I.R.C. appointed Lord Beeching to represent it on the board. I shall be having discussions with Lord Beeching and the new chairman to discuss his position or an alternative director's position vis-à-vis the Government.

Mr. Biffen: Since British taxpayers now have such an enormous commitment to Rolls-Royce, could my right hon. Friend say what rate of return may be expected upon the money which is being advanced? Second, it will be within his recollection that, fairly recently, Rolls-Royce carried out an admittedly modest act of diversification into computer technology. Are we to understand that an attempt will be made to indicate to Rolls-Royce how this money will be spent or that the management will still be free to diversify in what way it thinks fruitful?

Mr. Corfield: I thought that I had made clear—I am sorry that my hon. Friend has misunderstood me—that this money is entirely tied to the development of the RB211–22 engine. The other liabilities which have affected Rolls-Royce in its development will be met from its own reserves, however they have been earned.

Mr. Barnett: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of us will welcome the Government's recognition of the need to sustain such a vital company, but could he not have insisted upon an

investigation of a management which can be so wrong in its estimates—rising from £65 million to £135 million—in such an important field? If he has not insisted upon a thorough investigation of the management, why not, and may we take it from the reply which he gave a moment ago that we just do not know what return the taxpayers are likely to receive, if any, so that this is not, in fact, a commercial transaction? In the circumstances, should we not have a new definition of what is a lame duck?

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman, I know, is fully aware of the principle of launching aid, which was adopted some years ago and carried on by his own Administration. The return is based on the usual practice under launching aid of a levy based on sales. I have stressed already that I am appointing an independent firm of accountants to look into the matter, and I have made clear that there are to be management changes announced by the company itself this afternoon.

Mr. Rost: My right hon. Friend's statement will be most welcome to many thousands of people in and around Derby whose employment and well-being is very much at stake, but will he agree that what this country and Rolls-Royce need in the long term is a British airframe industry in order to maintain prosperity? Is it not the case that, if the airframe industry had not been run down so much in the past six years under the previous administration, Rolls-Royce would now be installing British engines in British aircraft and would be making a profit?

Mr. Corfield: While I take my hon. Friend's point, I must reply that the airframe industry is another matter.

Mr. Sheldon: It is becoming impossible to comprehend the Government's policy now. At one moment, they demolish the I.R.C. because they do not want to support lame ducks, and at the next the Minister asks the House for the largest sum of money ever given for the support of jet engines. May we have a definition of what his Department is about? Is it just the bailing-out Department, which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would not accept for his Ministry?

Mr. Corfield: No, Sir; the hon. Gentleman insults his own comprehension. It is


abundantly clear that this is a continuation of the launching aid policy, and it is tied to the particular engine. As regards the I.R.C., the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the I.R.C. has never been involved in launching but has been involved in a totally different form of financial exercise.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is just because the design and development costs of aero-engines constitute such a high proportion of the final sale price that this represents the most attractive form of export in terms of final price ratio to imported raw material cost of all major exports from this country?

Mr. Corfield: I should accept that as a general proposition, but I am not sure that I should argue from the general to the particular.

Mr. Whitehead: The whole House has made clear its concern for the future of the aerospace industry, but could the Minister tell us the present total of firm orders from airlines for the Trijet, and what proportion they represent of the total which the company envisages it will sell in order to meet the terms of this loan?

Mr. Corfield: I cannot do my arithmetic quite as fast as that, but, as far as I recollect, the total of orders, including some options which are fairly firm, is 175 at the moment. Two hundred and twenty-five aircraft sales are necessary to repay the launching aid, and, as far as I recollect, the marketing assessment is about 800 engines at the moment.

Mr. Tebbit: First, will my right hon. Friend transmit to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications the concern of hon. Members opposite about managerial failures and accountability for public funds? Second, does he expect any further investment from Governments abroad into Rolls-Royce, and, further—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] If the question is good, it does not matter so much.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not rule whether he is or is not in order.

Mr. Tebbit: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I have become too accustomed to points of order being raised in the House.
Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that, in the event of any failure of Lockheed in the United States, there will be an airframe on which this splendid engine may be hung?

Mr. Corfield: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in that admirable question, but I think that it goes a good deal wider than the subject. As regards investment from abroad, this will depend a good deal on the collaborative projects at present under way and any future ones which come about.

Mr. Dalyell: First, may we know who is to be the next chairman? Second, why does the Minister say that there has to be a further check by independent accountants? Why does there have to be that check? Finally, may we hear more about the basis of calculation of the "appropriate levy" to his Department about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke in his opening remarks?

Mr. Corfield: The new chairman, whose name will be announced this afternoon, is Lord Cole, a former chairman of Unilever. On the question of an independent accountant, I took the view, which I sensed to be the view of the whole House, that the magnitude of these figures was such that it was right that they should be checked and it was right that any Government support should be subject to that check. As regards the levy, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the normal arrangement is for a rising amount per batch of aircraft. I could not give the details in an oral answer now, but I shall be glad to publish the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Dalyell: On what basis?

Mr. Corfield: I have already explained that it will be on the basis of the sale of 225 aircraft, allowing for 100 engines for other purposes, maritime and so on. This will account for the return of the whole of the Government's money.

Mr. Ginsburg: The Minister will be aware that the Chancellor has just published a White Paper on public expenditure. Was this increase taken into account when the White Paper was published? If not, what precise effect will it have on the right hon. Gentleman's estimates?

Mr. Corfield: I am afraid that it will be necessary to put forward a Supplementary Estimate—[Interruption.]—for the additional expenditure in the current year. But in future years it is estimated that all this expenditure can be contained within the terms of the White Paper.

Mr. Benn: First, will the Minister confirm that the management changes that have now been brought about were recommended by the I.R.C. in its report? Secondly, will the independent accountants' figures go to the Central Capability Unit when it is set up? Thirdly, will the RB-61 engine for the European Airbus or the BAC 3–11 be in addition?
Is the Minister aware that what annoys the House is the hypocrisy of making speeches of the kind that have been made and then coming forward to ask for the enormous sums which everybody recognised might be necessary?

Mr. Corfield: The answer to the first point about the I.R.C. is "No". The accounts will come to me, and when I have examined and discussed them I will decide what to do with them.
I have already explained that any question of the development of the RB-61 is another matter depending on other decisions. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman, after his record with Beagle, has any right to talk about it in these terms.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the day.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 27th NOVEMBER

The following Members were successful in the ballot:

Mr. A. P. Costain.
Dr. Tom Stuttaford.
Sir David Renton.

Sir David Renton: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to give notice that on Friday, 27th November, if I have the opportunity, I will draw attention to the population problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order. For the benefit of new Members, if a Member is lucky in the Ballot he does not necessarily have to announce his topic at this moment.

BILL PRESENTED

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING REGULATIONS (LONDON) (INDEMNITY)

Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Graham Page, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Solicitor-General and Mr. Michael Heseltine, presented a Bill to grant an indemnity in respect of the delay in laying before Parliament certain regulations made under section 24 of the London Government Act 1963, and to continue in force the provision whereby regulations under that section are subject to annulment in accordance with the Statutory Instruments Act 1946; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.23 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill will restore to education authorities in Scotland the power to charge fees, if they wish to do so, in a limited number of their schools. The charging of fees in local authority schools in Scotland was abolished from 1st August, 1970, under the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1969. We on this side of the House opposed at every stage the relevant part of the Bill which became the 1969 Act. On its Third Reading I said:
… I therefore state categorically that the next Conservative Government will introduce that amending legislation in order to restore the right to local authorities to charge fees if they wish to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1970; Vol. 784, c. 1388–9]
We repeated that commitment in our election manifesto last June. I am glad to be able to honour that pledge so soon in the life of this Parliament.
This Bill, in addition to restoring the power to charge fees, will be helping to restore the former real relationship between the Secretary of State and education authorities which was altered by the previous Government and, in our view, altered for the worse. Over a long period of years, the organisation of school education had been recognised to be primarily the responsibility of education authorities. The Secretary of State had certain responsibilities in relation to approving, for example, schemes of educational provision or the closure of schools, but the initiative lay, rightly and clearly, with education authorities. Then, in 1965, the previous Government sent out Circular No. 600. That circular stated that it was the policy of that Government to further the reorganisation of secondary education in Scotland on comprehensive lines.
Education authorities remained responsible for the provision of school edu-

cation,but it was the Government which then claimed the right to decide the method by which they should provide it. Circular No. 600 clearly implied a change in the previous relationship between the Government and education authorities. Subsequent events showed how great the change was intended to be.
Neither Glasgow nor Edinburgh education authority wanted to include fee-paying schools in schemes of comprehensive reorganisation. The previous Government then decided to take away the power which authorities had had for 50 years to charge fees in a limited number of their schools. This was done by the 1969 Act. Further action was planned when Edinburgh and Glasgow declined to abolish selection in the secondary schools concerned. On 13th May this year, the then Secretary of State announced in a Written Answer that he proposed to introduce legislation to give him powers to require an education authority to submit plans for the re-organisation of all their schools on a non-selective basis. Other events intervened, however, and it is fortunately a rather different Bill that we are discussing today.
As a first step in the restoration of the old and happier relationship between the Government and education authorities, we withdrew Circular No. 600. Our new Circular No. 760 of 2nd July told authorities that the Government did not seek to impose any particular form of organisation on them. In any new proposals they may submit to me, authorities will no longer be bound to adopt one particular form of organisation.
This Bill will now make it possible for each authority to decide whether or not to charge fees in a limited number of schools. There will be no insistence by this Government on the superiority of any one system but, instead, local discretion to maintain the best of what already exists, always on the understanding that every child has a chance to develop his full potential. If an education authority wish to maintain some fee-paying schools, then we will respect a decision taken by responsible local councillors who know the local circumstances and the views of parents and teachers. But there will be no question of favouring a few children at the expense of the majority. Fee-paying schools will


be able to exist only where there is adequate provision of free school education. The right of every child to a good education without payment of fees is not affected by the Bill.
The Bill has only three Clauses. Some hon. Members may wonder why it was not possible for us simply to reinstate the wording in the proviso to Section 1(3) of the 1962 Act as originally enacted, which formerly provided the legal authority for charging fees in education authority schools.
The reason is that the starting off point must be the 1962 Act, as amended by the 1969 Act. Section 1(1) of the 1969 Act substituted new Sections for Sections 1 to 3 of the 1962 Act. We have no wish to replace the new Sections 1, 2 or 3A. We do want, however, to repeal the new Section 3 and provide a very different one, and that is what Clause 1 does.
Subsection (1) of this Section 3 repeals the first part of the Section 3 inserted by the 1969 Act in making the general statement that education should be provided by an authority without payment of fees but—and this is the important point—it qualifies this and makes it subject to a number of provisions. These are set out in subsections (2) to (5). Subsection (2) empowers an authority to charge fees for school education in a limited number of schools.
Subsection (3) provides for remission of fees in whole or in part on grounds of ability and aptitude. Subsection (4) lays down the condition which has to be satisfied before fees can be charged; namely, that free school education must be adequate whether it is provided in an authority's own schools or whether by agreement with the managers or with another education authority it is provided in other schools. Subsection (5) provides for the charging of a higher fee to the parent of a pupil from outside an authority's area attending a fee-paying school and also for the charging of a fee to the parent of a pupil from outside an authority's area attending a non fee-paying school. Subsection (6) repeats the latter part of the Section 3 provided by the 1969 Act. This subsection enables an authority to charge fees for the use of facilities for voluntary further education or for social, cultural and recreative activities.
Clause 2 of the Bill amends Section 11(1) of the 1962 Act as amended by the 1969 Act. The new amendment makes it the authority's duty to provide free books only when pupils are receiving free education. It will be left to individual authorities to decide whether or not to give free books to pupils at fee-paying schools. Clause 3 is in standard form and requires no explanation.
The Bill is simple, self-contained and clear. Our reasons are also clear. Edinburgh and Glasgow have for many years, in some cases for centuries, been rightly proud of their fine primary and secondary fee-paying schools. Each of the secondary schools has an outstanding record of academic success, no matter how this is measured. This is not disputed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who may claim that the success is explained by the selective nature of the intake, though on other occasions they say that selection is wrong and unreliable.
Because every child cannot go to these schools, the Opposition wish no one to do so. It is simply not true that the great majority of children in the areas in question are excluded by financial considerations; very few can be so prevented with fees ranging from under £10 to £40 per annum. The fees in most cases amount to no more than the equivalent of a few packets of cigarettes per week and for those who cannot afford even this, there are a number of free places available.
The Opposition would deny the availability of these schools to the parents who want to send their children to them. The extent to which the schools are selective, and some are highly selective, is a measure of the extent to which the demand for places outruns the supply. Some parents attach a value to an intensive academic education in a historic school. They may be a minority but they are a substantial minority who should not be ignored. Some of these parents are willing to make a financial sacrifice so that their children may have this type of education. Indeed, although this is not the main reason for the Bill its financial consequences are not unimportant. By paying fees, the parents reduce the burden to the taxpayer and the ratepayer. The 1969 Act resulted in an increase in the burden of local rates. This Bill will alleviate this burden.
Claims by the Opposition of subsidised educational privilege by the community as a whole just do not make sense. Every child, whether of poor parents or of rich, of whatever social status, may apply for a place. All children have the chance to compete for a place. If the schools cease to exist, choice is not taken away from those parents who can find the fees for independent or grant-aided schools but from those who cannot, but can manage the fees for the local authority schools.
All the competing children cannot get in, but that is no reason for preventing any from doing so and for destroying the tradition of these excellent schools.
For our part, we are content to see education authorities provide education in comprehensive schools if, in the view of the education authority concerned, that is the best arrangement in the local circumstances. What we are opposed to is interference against the wishes of the authority responsible for the arrangements in the area with what is already working well. The way to improve the school education in an area is not to destroy some of the best schools which are already there. The way to do it is by addition to, not by subtraction from, the educational resources of the area, and by devoting the additional resources to other schools.

Mr. John Smith: How valuable a tradition is it if it depends on small fees? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the schools would not have been destroyed but simply would not have charged fees?

Mr. Campbell: All of those concerned with the schools in question have made it clear to my hon. Friends and me in the last two years or so that the proposals of the Labour Party, had they been implemented, would have meant the virtual destruction of these schools in the form in which they have existed.
The Opposition may say they are worried that the fee-paying schools cream off the most able children. Certainly, some of the very able children will be taken by the fee-paying schools. But some parents of such children will prefer them to go to comprehensive schools, and it certainly cannot be argued that all the ablest children will necessarily go

to fee-paying schools. I am not aware of any convincing evidence to prove that fee-paying and comprehensive schools cannot exist within the same area.
Let us look a little more closely at this charge of creaming off. It seems to me that the Opposition will make a great mistake if they place too much reliance on any argument about its bad effects. The creamed-off pupils would not add to the country's total of trained manpower if they went to local comprehensive schools; they would pass their examinations anyway.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite know very well that the distribution of different kinds of housing in these two great cities is such that some of the schools are very far from being socially comprehensive. In fact, there may well be greater differences in this respect between comprehensive schools in different parts of the cities than there are between some comprehensive schools and the fee-paying schools. In any event, to regard the creamed-off pupils, as the Opposition have appeared to, as potential agents of social change who ought to improve the comprehensive schools, seems to make unrealistic demands on them as well as totally ignoring the question of parental choice.
It may be asked why, when we have restored to authorities the freedom to run a selective system of education, we also feel it necessary to restore to them the power to charge fees. One good democratic reason is, of course, that we know that Edinburgh and Glasgow wish to continue to charge fees. These two authorities contain not far short of a third of the population of Scotland. If there are in Edinburgh and Glasgow parents willing to pay fees—and I hear hon. Members murmuring "The Tories", and I shall come to that in a minute—

Mr. George Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman is talking as though the whole of Edinburgh and Glasgow agreed with him. That is completely wrong. Some, the very Tory among his Tory friends, agree, but only them.

Mr. Campbell: In a few minutes I shall point out that for many years Glasgow was under Labour domination and still wished to retain fee-paying schools. If there are in Edinburgh and Glasgow parents willing to pay fees—and the competition for places at fee-paying


schools proves that—it seems foolish to prevent them from making a contribution to the cost of the education of their children over and above their contribution through rates and taxes.
It is sometimes suggested that the parents are paying for a better education and that this is wrong. This seems a strange criticism to come from supporters of a comprehensive system and suggests a lack of confidence in the system which all authorities were asked to implement up to June of this year. I think that it is reasonable to say that parents are paying for something different. Some are paying for what was described by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) during the Committee stage of the Bill which became the 1969 Act as a
traditional senior secondary education".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee. 13th February, 1969; c. 223.]
This illustrates a fundamental difference between the philosophy of the Government and their predecessor. We believe that in running their own affairs people should have some freedom to choose what they consider to be the best. The Socialists seem to believe that people should get only what the Government think good for them.
As for the differences; some of these schools also provide something else which is an attraction for some parents—both a primary and a secondary department. This enables the school to cater for pupils from the age of five to the age of 18. Financially, the fee-paying and selective schools can bridge the gap between non fee-paying education authority comprehensive schools and the more expensive grant-aided and independent schools. Surely there is room for some variety in educational provision, both for the sake of further educational development and for the individual parents with their own views about the most suitable education for their child.
I shall explain the reasons why the Bill does something unique to Scotland. In England there is a much greater variety of schools than in Scotland. Not only has comprehensive reorganisation not gone so far, but in England the direct grant schools, by virtue of their provision of at least 25 per cent. free places for pupils who have been educated for two

years in maintained primary schools, add to the provision within the areas of education authorities. There is no similar requirement for the provision of free places for sponsored pupils by the grant-aided schools in Scotland.
Scotland has for centuries had her own educational system which has differed in many ways from that in England—the types of school, training and qualifications of teachers, the examination system, the age of transfer from one stage to another, all were distinctive from the position in England. It is not surprising, therefore, that practice in relation to fee paying in authority schools has differed over the last 50 years. Ever since 1918, no parent in Scotland has had to pay directly any school fees in order to secure an adequate education for his child, but limited fee paying was allowed.
Fees in both primary and secondary schools were still allowed in Scotland by the Education (Scotland) Act, 1945. The Second Reading of the Bill which became the 1945 Act was moved by no less distinguished a statesman than Mr. Tom Johnston. Mr. Johnston had earlier declined to allow Glasgow Corporation to abolish fee paying on the grounds that suitable alternative educational arrangements could not be made. It is noteworthy that Glasgow Corporation during all its subsequent years of Labour control did not reopen this question and in particular showed no inclination to respond to Circular 600 by the abolition of fee paying and selection.

Mr. James Dempsey: Lanarkshire did.

Mr. Campbell: What we are doing, therefore, is to restore something which is well embodied in Scotland's educational tradition and which is still wanted by the education authorities most concerned.
The nature of school provision will rightly vary from area to area according to local circumstances. Education authorities are in day-to-day contact with the people most concerned with the provision—teachers, parents and children—and so they are best qualified to make decisions about the organisation of school education.
Because there has been some comment and speculation in the Press, I should


like to put an end to some misapprehensions about the procedures of the House in dealing with the Second Readings of Scottish Bills. In some newspapers, articles have appeared based upon a complete misconception about the reason for the Second Reading of this Bill taking place on the Floor of the House. Of course, as the House knows, the Second Readings of all Scottish Bills take place in the House itself, but in many cases this is formal and the debate in relation to the principle of the Bill takes place in the Scottish Grand Committee.
The Standing Orders of the House ensure that, if a Second Reading is opposed by 10 or more M.P.s, it is to be taken on the Floor of the House. In any case, if there is to be a Division on the Second Reading, a Scottish Bill must have its Second Reading debate in the House, not in the Grand Committee. This is the reason why the Education (Scotland) Act, 1969, which we are now seeking to change, was also debated on Second Reading on the Floor of the House; and it demonstrates that it has nothing to do with the relative strengths of the parties. Under both Conservative and Labour Governments, Scottish Bills which were controversial have had their Second Readings in the Chamber.
Some of the Press comment has also been misinformed about the composition of the Scottish Grand Committee, again in connection with the present Bill and its passage through Parliament. It must therefore be recalled that for more than 50 years Standing Orders have required that the Scottish Grand Committee should contain 10 to 15 additional non-Scottish Members, in addition to the 71 Scottish Members. For a great many years, the Grand Committee has never met without at least 10 Welsh, Irish or English Members in its composition. The rules require not less than 10 and no more than 15 of such additional Members. Moreover, it is not a new situation for the Government of the day not to have an overall majority in the Scottish Grand Committee. This has happened before.
Our Bill has been welcomed by the two city authorities which have a direct interest in the preservation of fee-paying schools. We see no reason to frustrate their desire to retain what is valuable,

to extend the area of parental choice and to provide variety in the types of education authority school. Our Bill will enable the authorities to achieve these objects, and I commend it to the House.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I rise to oppose the Second Reading.
Before I go any further, may I enlighten the right hon. Gentleman about the 1969 Bill? It was taken on the Floor of the House not because of any desire of the then Government to take up the time of the House, but because the then Opposition, led by the right hon. Gentleman, exercised their rights, or suggested that they would do so, and so we did not debate the Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will assure us that the Committee stage of the Bill will be taken in the Scottish Standing Committee and not on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I give that assurance.

Mr. Ross: All this is extremely unimportant and is not related to the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to put the Press right, he should hold a Press conference. He usually takes the time of the House with more important things.
However, he was right to say that there was no issue which created more heat and controversy, more acrimonious and keen debate, than this in the last Parliament, and now we are starting again in this. The issues have been clear-cut.
But one thing has happened since the debate was resumed. Other events have intervened, to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase. We had a General Election—

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Just in time.

Mr. Ross: Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite paraded Scotland and had in their Scottish manifesto, which they did not have in their manifesto for Great Britain, a reference to this subject. This was, therefore, a purely Scottish matter and it had nothing to do with England and Wales. We campaigned against it. What, then, was the result? The Secretary of State sits on the Front Bench opposite with, if they are all here, 22 Members behind him. I have 43


behind me. Of the 71 Members of Parliament who were returned for Scotland, only 22 support the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MacArthur: rose—

Mr. Ross: I am sorry, I am not giving way at this stage.

Mr. MacArthur: On this point—

Mr. Ross: No. The hon. Member knows quite well that we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss all these points and, no doubt, he will make one of his lengthy speeches. The result was, of course, on this point—

Mr. MacArthur: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member must not persist.

Mr. Ross: In Scotland, the Secretary of State lost the election.
I remember the speeches during the Committee and Report stages and on Third Reading of our Bill. The Liberal Party was on our side. One of the finest speeches I remember—it was typically Scots, canny, forthright and blunt—was by a man who charmed this House and who, in a very short time, made many friends for himself. That was Alasdair Mackenzie. We were all very sorry indeed to learn of his death the other day. Alasdair Mackenzie was almost typical of a Scot from a particular area. His instinctive reaction towards fee paying and limitation of opportunity of Scottish children was the truly Scottish one. I assure hon. Members opposite that we feel strongly about this. We feel that we have a mandate from the Scottish people to oppose what the Government are doing in this reactionary Measure.

Mr. MacArthur: No.

Mr. Ross: We remember the Conservative Party's spokesman in Glasgow throughout the discussions on our Bill. He was the Member for Pollok, Professor Esmond Wright. He is no longer a Member of Parliament; he lost his seat. How many Tory Members are there from Glasgow? There are two.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The cream.

Mr. Ross: The cream!

Mr. MacArthur: The cream is better than sour milk.

Mr. Ross: The cream has gone sour a long time ago, and no one more so than the Secretary of State, because, of the two people who fought our Bill, one was dispatched by the public of Scotland to limbo and the other was dispatched to the back benches.
This is a serious point, because hon. Members opposite spent a long time last year and before that expressing concern about constitutional change and the desire more readily to meet the voice of Scotland. They produced a report which was intended to give us considerable change. In one section of it, on page 59, they quote—and I agree with the principle laid down by—the Balfour Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs that
Scotland's needs and point of view should be known and brought into account at all stages in the formulation and execution of policy—when policy is being considered, when policy is being decided and when policy is announced.
The voice of Scotland spoke on this at the General Election. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are ignoring it because, even if they are aware, they certainly have not been responsive to the needs of Scottish people in education. By their behaviour in ignoring the decision of the Scottish people, the Government can only achieve a weakening of confidence in British parliamentary life and cast serious doubt on their sincerity and concern to attune the machinery of Government more closely to Scotland's needs. If the Government do this before the reform, how worthy will the reform be?
The Secretary of State knows quite well that the majority of people of Scotland take great pride in the traditions of Scottish education. It may well be that during our discussions last year and those now starting, we surprise people to discover that there is fee paying in local authority schools in Scotland when it was abolished in England in 1944, and, indeed, that there is not only fee paying, but that there is selection, when our


whole tradition in Scotland has been comprehensive education.
I can understand hon. Members opposite. I think it was Sir Edward Boyle, a man of charming frankness, who admitted that the party opposite, on their side of the House, amongst the Conservatives and amongst those in the Administration at the time, had a considerable handicap because they had no personal experience of the public sector of education. That is true. There is about one hon. Member opposite whom I see at present who went to a Scottish school. The school with the highest representation on the other side of the Scottish Grand Committee when it meets is, of course, Eton. Hon. Members opposite do not know the Scottish tradition. Indeed, part of what they are doing now is justifying decisions of probably their own educational background.
If the Scottish system was so good and the traditions so great, why did hon. Members opposite ignore Scottish educational establishments? There is only one who did not, and that is the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who takes great pride in having gone to Glasgow High and who sees in everything we suggest the destruction of all the traditions of that school, which is complete nonsense.
Sitting next to the hon. Member for Cathcart is his colleague the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who is my Member of Parliament, not with my good will, I regret to say. In the town that gives the name to his constituency, he has a school as old as Glasgow High—Ayr Academy. Ayr Academy, like Glasgow High, has existed for centuries, and during those centuries it has changed both in intake and in educational structure and in its relationship to the area round about. I would place Ayr Academy second to no school. Other hon. Members from different areas will say the same of Hamilton Academy, for example. Others remember fine schools in Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness, all of which threw aside fee-paying a long time ago, thereby keping up with the educational needs of the Scottish people.
The complaint is that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are rooted to a Victorian and Edwardian past in Scottish education and fail to meet the challenge

of change that is necessary if we are to get the best out of the Scottish people and give them the best advantage of educational advance.
We are not talking for the Highlands of Scotland. We are not talking of anything other than Glasgow and Edinburgh. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Ayr wants to say anything, will he get up on his feet?

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I am trying only to clear my mind. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should talk only about Glasgow and Edinburgh, or about Ayr as well? He should make up his mind.

Mr. Ross: I have told the hon. Gentleman that we are not talking about Ayr, because Ayr has changed. Ayr Academy was fee paying. It discarded fees. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman would be able to tell me when it discarded them. If he knows, let him tell me.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that nobody has suggested that Ayr Academy should be asked to provide for fee paying. All that we are doing is to allow people who so wish to do so.

Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Gentleman that many people in Ayr objected to the academy getting rid of fees and becoming comprehensive, even as they have objected to changes in different localities. The hon. Gentleman by his failure to reply to my question shows that he does not know the answer. If there is one thing about which he is ignorant it is education in Ayr; even more so than he is about education in Scotland as a whole.
The great thing about hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they are prepared to talk about Scottish education without knowing anything about it. Of course educational conditions must change, but there must be the proper leadership to bring about the right kind of change. The Government must give a lead. We did not develop our national system of education without the leadership of great men. I shall not take up the time of the House by going through the centuries of history and naming those great men, but I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that I could do that.
The point about hon. Gentlemen opposite is that their whole policy is negative. They are turning their backs on progress, and they are doing so to help such a small number of people. Of course Glasgow and Edinburgh constitute a great part of the population of Scotland, but the bulk of the population of those two cities does not go to these fee-paying schools. This is the position about central authority and the Government. The people of Scotland make their demands in respect of the standards and the types of education they require, and the Government ignore the will of the people if they do not listen and respond to those demands.
I was pleased about the circular to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It was welcomed all over Scotland, and he did not have a word to say about it when it was issued. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about a comprehensive system of education. They support it in theory, but they destroy it in practice. One cannot have selection, be it fee-paying or non-fee-paying if there is to be a comprehensive system. Of necessity the fee-paying selective schools in Edinburgh and Glasgow are denying to the great bulk of the population in those cities the proper organisation of their schools into a comprehensive system from which everyone will benefit. This proposal is offensive to most people in Scotland who regard it as a denial of educational progress.
I remember the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) when he described the position in Edinburgh. He told us about the social division and the whole rotting of cohesive unity within a community because of this educational race.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): To which school did the hon. Gentleman send his children?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will get an opportunity to speak. He knows that my hon. Friend answered that question in the House. The hon. Gentleman should contain himself for a few moments.
We are told that parental choice is at stake. What parental choice can there be when there are not enough schools

or places in these schools to enable people to take up their choice? I think it was the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) who gave the figures on one occasion. He told us of two schools which had an aggregate of 140 places available for which there were about 455 applications. What system of choice is there when there are 140 places for 450 applicants? There is no choice. The choice is made, not by the parents, but by somebody else.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite can, if they like, talk about the fees being nominal. I ask the House to remember what we have been debating in connection with the poorer families. Fees of £20 to £40 a year must mean something to them. They cannot have a choice. But what about the people of Inverness, and of Moray and Nairn? Are they not to get the benefit of this better system? They can have a choice if they can afford to send their children to live in Glasgow and pay for that as well as paying for the school fees. What real choice is there for those people?

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The local authorities in the area can choose. It is well known that in my area, because of the geographical spread of population, the situation is different, but the local authority can, under our system, choose what is appropriate.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will get all this teased out in Committee. He knows that the local authorities outside Edinburgh and Glasgow have already chosen. They have chosen the traditional path of Scottish education.
There is no choice. I ask the House to remember what was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith), who is the expert on moral fibre. He said:
We believe that, if there are two systems, one of which is possibly better than the other—and I am not saying that it is in this case—the individual parent should be allowed to choose which system he considers to be the better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11th February, 1969, c. 161.]
There are not two systems in Scotland. It is only in Edinburgh and Glasgow that there are two systems, and in those cities there are not enough places for everyone to be able to choose. This better system about which hon. Gentlemen opposite


talk is not available in the greater part of Scotland. If hon. Gentlemen opposite really believe what they say about this better system they should be exhorting, encouraging and giving leadership to the rest of Scotland to adopt it. But they do not do that because they know that they dare not.
What about this limitation? What will the right hon. Gentleman do about that? We are getting this business of free places thrown in—Victorian and Edwardian secondary schools, and charity. That is the progress being made by the Scottish Tory Party in the year 1970. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must admit that there is no real freedom of choice, and that all we get is a lot of argument.
I suppose it is thought that if we keep these special schools they will solve the problems of Easterhouse. The people there will be able to break out in their numbers and invade Glasgow High. By heavens, that will be the day! We know the reaction to that if it looked like happening. Fees would go up and up and up.

The Under-Secretary for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): It is scandalous to say that.

Mr. Ross: It is interesting to note that despite the hon. Gentleman having said that we could do without fees and keep these schools and not interfere with our traditions, hon. Gentlemen opposite still want to maintain fee-paying schools, and we get the whisper that the fees are going up.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman has made a scandalous suggestion. Has he any evidence, of any sort, from anywhere, that these schools use any kind of discrimination against areas, or types or classes of people? If he has no evidence of that, will he withdraw that most scandalous suggestion?

Mr. Ross: I am not going to withdraw it.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman should do so.

Mr. Ross: I remember the activities of the hon. Member for Ayr when there was a question of zoning Ayr Academy. There is a section of the population which thinks that it owns the school. I felt

that we should zone the school and bring in people from Russell Street and Braehead. I went to Russell Street and eventually, on the basis of a selective system, got one of the few places at Ayr Academy. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is what his party tried to do in Ayr just two years ago. I readily project, if this situation were found to be even remotely arising, what action would be taken in some of those schools.
I am sorry indeed that the Government should bring this kind of thing forward. How on earth do they justify selection in this day and age, because there must be selection according to some system, and no system of selection has yet been brought forward which has proved to be adequate. Selection at the age of 5—who on earth is going to say he can judge, when the child is aged 5, what the future of that child will be or how it will develop?

Mr. MacArthur: They do not.

Mr. Ross: Or at the age of 8. I tell the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire that I am referring to a speech by the hon. Member for Cathcart, because he was the person who mentioned the ages of 5 and 8 and 12—and he is nodding his head in agreement. Sometimes the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire does not know what he has said himself and I do not regard him as an authority on what other people have said.
There we are, and this is a system which is to give equality of education to the people of Scotland! Of course it is nonsense and everyone knows it is nonsense. Then why on earth do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite fight for it? They cannot come out and say that they do believe in comprehensive education, but they come out and say, "This is the right way in these particular places to get the élite—to cream off and get the best". Well, that is an awful slur on other fine schools—in the Highlands, in the Borders, and in other cities than these two. But this is what they resort to, and by retaining a system which, I think, in the case of one city, takes one-third of those in the fifth and sixth year, in another, about one-quarter, they deprive the comprehensive system of potential which really would mean the right


kind of scholastic talent mix which would be desirable in these areas.
This is one of the worst features of hon. Gentlemen's pretensions—pretending to claim that they are supporting a tradition in Scottish education when what they are doing is undermining a tradition of Scottish education, pretending to bring forward something which the people of Scotland want when the people of Scotland have said they do not want it, something which has been educationally condemned by the E.I.S., by headmasters, by educationists, and, above all, by the parents. The parental choice is that they want comprehensive schools.
Really, I was hoping for miracles today, even up to the last minute. After all, think what we have seen in this one week. The hon. Gentleman has thrown his past overboard and even at Question Time today he was defending the G.T.C. He who divided the House and insisted that the Tory Party vote against Rhodesian sanctions this week voted for sanctions against Rhodesia. Then we had this eating of words which went on just about half an hour or an hour ago on this non-intervention in industry which has been thrown overboard. I thought the hon. Gentleman might have stood up and said, "We have decided to join those on the road to Damascus, and not to proceed with this Bill".

Dr. M. S. Miller: A Daniel?

Mr. Ross: I do not know about that, but I certainly hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite appreciate the educational disadvantages of what they are doing, and appreciate the social division which is implicit in what they are doing—the effect upon the children who are branded as failures, the effect upon parents, and especially in respect of the social competitiveness in parts of Glasgow and in Edinburgh. I hope they will think again.
But what interests me, too, is their failure even to put faith and confidence in what they call their own system. After all, what does the Bill say? That an education authority can
charge fees … in some or all of the classes in a limited number of schools".
Why limited? Why not give local authorities that freedom hon. Gentlemen are

talking about. It shows that the right hon. Gentleman has no confidence in the position; he just wants to keep it where it was. Privilege, I think it is, he is preserving. It is the first time I have used the word, but that is the only construction I can place upon the right hon. Gentleman's idea of limitation. I am challenging him in respect of what he says is his own belief in this kind of tradition.
I sincerely hope that my hon. Friends themselves will speak and speak forcefully about our belief in the comprehensive system of education, which gives opportunity to the long-forgotten mass of the average of the children of Scotland, and gives them the opportunity, which more and more of them have taken, to show that they who had been discarded can make considerable achievements, whose talent had ben thrown away and wasted. The figures were given in a notable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) when we had the previous discussion. I am sorry he is not here to fortify us today, but he is on a parliamentary delegation to Ghana.
We want an educational system which is not wasteful, which is educationally sound, which cherishes talent, and, above all, does not divide communities or divide the nation. It is regrettable that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite bring forward as their first Scottish Bill such a Bill as this, so destructive, so divisive and so negative.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: It is quite a long time now since we heard the right hon. Gentleman leading the Opposition on a major Bill and I should like to say to him that I was looking forward eagerly to his speech today. I had thought that his tenure of that great office of Secretary of State for Scotland would perhaps have produced a new man for us. He was Secretary of State for a record period, and I congratulate him on it.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman did not at the time.

Mr. MacArthur: It certainly went on and on and on; and here he is, rightly back in Opposition again, playing the same old tune of years ago. We have


heard it all again—about Eton and so on—the same old dreary story—

Mr. Ross: It is a true story.

Mr. MacArthur: Listening to it I was reminded of those lines,
Across the wire an electric message came:
He is not better, he is much the same.
It is precisely much the same that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, his play about Eton and so on was to be expected. We are used to it. But he should have more regard for the views of head teachers and teaching staffs and representatives of the local authorities in the cities affected by this Bill, and let him just remember the resolution passed by a large majority by Glasgow Education Committee, which made three points. First, it declared:
That the Secretary of State"—
that is, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—
had not advanced any argument in support of the contention that the abolition of these schools would significantly benefit the Authority's wholly comprehensive system.
2. That the Roman Catholic Arch-Diocese held the view that it was the wish of Catholic parents expressed by the Church Authority that the status quo be retained.
In direct reply to what the right hon. Gentleman was just saying, it went on:
3. That head teachers of these schools supported the retention of the schools and disputed the Secretary of State's view that selection was incompatible with comprehensive education.
I doubt whether any of those head teachers or any members of that education authority went to Eton. They had education in Scotland as their interest, just as we on this side have.
It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to play around with the election figures of 23 Conservatives and 40-odd Labour Members, but it comes a little odd from him, this moral electoral argument. I remind him in passing that, for every 12 votes—I am being generous—cast for his party in Scotland, 14 were cast against. So do let him make extravagant claims. Do not let him talk to this House about the propriety of election results when he was one of the Government who gerrymandered and fixed and fiddled the constituency boundaries in Scotland for his own party's advantage. Do not let him talk to us in those terms again.
He cannot be proud of his record in this matter. What a long shabby story it was. First of all, there was the circular 600 which they pretended was consultative in tone: when they found that local authorities were not bending to their will, we began to see coercion. Then we had the 1969 Act. When the local authorities still could not put forward schemes, because they were asked to do the impossible, we had the threat of another Act of Parliament from the right hon. Gentleman just before the General Election. It is a sad history.
As my right hon. Friend reminded us, the effect of the Bill is to amend the 1962 Act, so that local education authorities in Scotland shall again have the right to charge fees in some of their schools if they wish. We are just reversing the effect of the critical part of Section 1 of the 1969 Act, and thus fulfilling yet another Conservative pledge. Hon. Members, certainly from Scotland, will remember that that notorious Section 1 gave rise to long and sometimes heated debate in this House and in Scotland.
Perhaps, in view of my own participation in that debate, I might express my personal appreciation to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for introducing this Bill so soon. Perhaps I can also express my deep gratitude to the present Leader of the Opposition for recommending the dissolution of Parliament when he did. His decision precipitated the collapse of his Administration and so saved the fee-paying schools in Scotland—just in time. Local authorities, parents and children who believe in freedom owe him a debt for enabling us to restore freedom to them.
I use the word "freedom", because I believe that this should be the most important theme of the debate. Three freedoms are involved—the freedom of local authorities to determine the form of education in the areas for which they are responsible; the freedom of parents, even on a restricted scale, to have some choice of school for their children; and, for the outstanding child, the freedom to attend a school geared to his educational needs.
Perhaps I may remind the House that we are defending a sector of education which in Britain exists uniquely in Scotland and there only in Edinburgh and


Glasgow. Only 14 schools will be directly affected by the Bill, with, in all, under 12,000 children. But it is not the number of local authorities or the number of schools or the number of children which matters: in the end, what matters is the principle that the freedom enjoyed by local authorities should be protected. It is right that the Conservative Opposition defended this freedom and that a Conservative Government are taking the first opportunity to establish that freedom again by statute.
Of course fees are charged in these schools, as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock said. The fees have been small. Perhaps they will be increased: even so, I doubt whether any hon. Member opposite can feel that the fees are likely to be of a size which would turn these schools into bastions of financial privilege. Indeed, the fees have been small enough to bring the schools within the reach of many parents who could not afford the higher charges made by grant-aided schools, let alone the much higher charges made by schools in the independent sector. If the egalitarians—

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. If the Front Bench spokesman on the other side is not speaking from the Front Bench, surely he should treat the House to the courtesy of speaking his thoughts and not reading what has been put down long since. Must we suffer it, Sir?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I have been observing the hon. Member myself, and I am of the opinion that he was doing no more than what is often done by hon. Members on both sides—refreshing his memory by copious use of notes.

Mr. MacArthur: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would point out to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) who made that frivolous intervention that I am using copious notes to keep my speech brief and that that assists me in making my speech so much better than anything that he may say later in the debate.
If the hon. Member for Motherwell and the so-called egalitarians around him had had their way under the 1969 Act, they would have removed choice not from the rich, who can look elsewhere,

but from the not-so-rich, the less well-off parents. It is their freedom that the hon. Member was seeking to remove: they would have lost all choice under the 1969 Act. Under the hon. Gentleman and his friends, theirs would have been Hobson's choice, no choice at all.

Mr. Lawson: I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member, but when he is talking about freedom, what does he mean by "taking away the freedom of local authorities", when, in respect of their rent policy, the Government are going to impose upon local authorities, willy-nilly, a system of rent rebates?

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Member knows that all our policies are designed to build a free society, in which help is directed to those areas where it is really needed. I support that policy, as do most of the people, and most of the people in Scotland as well. The hon. Gentleman supports a policy of Hobson's choice for the poor. What kind of Socialism is that? It is no Socialism at all. That bogus egalitarianism removes freedom and puts greater power in the hands of the rich, because it restricts choice to them.

Mr. John Smith: rose—

Mr. MacArthur: I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment, if he has a relevant intervention.
The Bill is about fees. They predominate in the wording of the Bill, as they did in Section 1 of the 1969 Act. The whole wording of that Section was about fees, yet this is a paradoxical situation, in that the debate is not basically about fees as such but about freedom and selectivity.

Mr. John Smith: As I understand the hon. Member's argument, it is that it would be against egalitarianism to abolish the fee paying local authority schools. From that, I think, it follows inevitably that the hon. Member thinks that direct grant-aided schools are privileged. Would he therefore campaign to have them abolished?

Mr. MacArthur: I am saying nothing of the kind. What I am saying is that it is very silly to remove a range of choice from parents in the lower income brackets. Any sensible person would agree.
I was saying that the debate is really about selectivity. Hon. Gentlemen opposite detest selectivity, they detest selection by merit. Yet surely even they will agree that there is selectivity in every form of education at every level, not least in the comprehensive system. There is a belief among hon. Members opposite that selectivity is sinful. We heard from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock just now that selectivity is somehow sinful or harmful because of the hurt to the child who is not favourably selected.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am now totally confused. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that this was a debate about freedom. He now says that it is about selectivity. But selectivity is a total denial of freedom to choose. It is decided upon the child's estimated ability. No choice, no freedom, is left. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind.

Mr. MacArthur: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for trying to clear my mind. That is unnecessary, because by mind is clear on the matter. Selectivity, at least in some forms of education, is necessary to preserve freedom of choice, and freedom of choice in education is an essential ingredient of a free society.

Mr. Alex Eadie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacArthur: Not now.
There is selectivity in every form of education, not least in the comprehensive system. There was a very interesting paragraph on this very point of selectivity in the London Comprehensive Schools Report, 1966, it said:
Although many of the schools rely upon a fairly close grading or streaming of the classes, this may not necessarily be known to the pupils and the schools tend to use some ingenuity in devising form names to disguise the grading of the particular form.
In other words, the schools which follow that system are, I assume, trying to meet the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, to avoid offence to the child not favourably selected. But, very significantly, the report immediately adds:
How far this deceives the individual pupil is, however, a matter for speculation.

Mr. Eadie: rose—

Mr. William Hannan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacArthur: I cannot give way to two hon. Members at once.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not give way the hon. Members must remain in their seats.

Mr. MacArthur: I will give way to the hon. Member for Midlothian.

Mr. Eadie: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He has been trying to argue the case for selectivity. Do I take it that he is in favour of selectivity at five-plus? That is in issue in this debate when we are talking about fee-paying schools.

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated a point I was coming to. There is selectivity in every form of education, no matter how much one tries to disguise it. It is clear from the report I have quoted that the disguising is not successful. Inevitably, some children are brighter than others, and no amount of social engineering by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can alter that.
There are other arguments in the wonderland of Socialism, some of them attractive at first sight. One is the point which the hon. Member for Midlothian hinted at, that selectivity takes place too soon. In our debates on the 1969 Act, hon. Members opposite were largely misinformed about this. That was a reason for my intervention during the right hon. Gentleman's speech, an intervention which he misunderstood. The securing of a place in a local authority fee-paying primary school is not a guarantee of a place in the secondary school, and rightly so. It is reasonable to argue that the ages of five, certainly, and 11, 12, or even 13, are too young at which to identify educational promise. But even in the comprehensive system there must be a time when a decision is made, there must be a moment of determination.
Or do hon. Gentlemen opposite argue that there should be no selectivity ever? If so, they should persue the logic of that view and provide free university places for all, with no selective examination, and degrees for all in a mad academic caucus race, with prizes for all for fear of hurting the feelings of those who fail. That is patently absurd. It


illustrates the absurdity of the arguments too often deployed from the benches opposite.
The point has also been made that selective schools cream off the ablest pupils, thus putting the comprehensive school at a disadvantage. I question that. If we look at the proportion of children attending fee-paying schools in Glasgow, we see that that argument does not hold water. The number is very few. I quoted earlier from the resolution of the local education authority. I concede that in Edinburgh the proportion is higher.
But I prefer to defend the freedom of local authorities, which understand local conditions, to determine the shape of local education. The priority of argument in my mind lies firmly with that.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there is no freedom here because there are not enough places for all the children who want and deserve them. Regrettably, that is true, but it is no argument to go on from that to say that because not all the children can get places there should not be any places at all for any children.
In our earlier discussions we heard the argument that it is somehow wrong for taxpayers and ratepayers to subsidise places for selected children. We may hear that argument again today. It is a strange doctrine. Every taxpayer contributes to the Concorde project, yet how many will travel supersonically? Nearer home, my constituents have been contributing for years through their taxes to the deficit of British Rail, yet many of them were denied the opportunity to travel by rail by the Labour Government, which closed down the direct railway line between Perth and Edinburgh. That was not in the Beeching Plan, but was a decision of the Labour Government.
The Opposition's arguments do not stand any scrutiny. Hon. Gentlemen opposite embarked on a crazy, dogmatic scheme which we are happily getting rid of. They did so without any thought for its practicality. When we asked them how the schools would be converted and forced into the comprehensive system, they had no answer. At every stage we asked the then Government, "What will happen to these schools? How can they be made into comprehensive schools?

How can they be forced into another shape? What is to be done with them?" Every time, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said, "That is not a matter for us. It is for the local authorities to decide, and we are waiting for their proposals." But they knew full well that they were asking the local authorities to carry out the impossible, or, at best, the impracticable. We have never heard from the party opposite what could be done with those schools and how they could be shaped into the comprehensive pattern without distorting that pattern totally.
Hon. Members opposite have advanced no educational argument in support of their view. The more I hear the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends speak, the more I hear the sounds of arguments based on a bogus egalitarianism which they have used to divert attention from the real education needs of Scotland over the past few years, needs which are becoming clearly apparent to us only now that we have access to the figures and the facts. There has been no educational argument at all. All we have heard from the party opposite is dogma, Transport House egalitarianism which has no place in the Scottish education scene.
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends, and trust that the House will get this Bill for freedom on to the Statute Book as quickly as possible.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Iain Campbell: As I rise to make my maiden speech, two thoughts come into my mind. One is that it is perhaps very nice to make one's maiden speech among one's ain folk, and the other is that it might provide a little light relief from the argumentative Scots.
There are certain formalities in a maiden speech. The first is that I should pay tribute to my predecessor, and this I do with a full heart. Tom Steele served the House for 25 years, for 20 of which he represented my constituency of West Dunbartonshire. For the previous five years he represented South Lanark, where he had the chance to cross swords twice with the present Foreign Secretary. The score then was one all. Having in mind some of the measures the Government


have been bringing forward in the last few weeks, I think that we shall have to get Tom out of retirement and have him up there. I am sure that if we did so the score would be 2–1 in his favour.
Dunbartonshire represents, in a way, a miniature Scotland. At the southern end, the Erskine Bridge is being thrown across the river—a symbol of Scotland coming into the 'seventies. Further into the county we have the remnants of the heavy engineering industry which was once paramount in the economy, and we have remnants of the textile industry in the Vale of Leven. These industries have been replaced by modern light industry, the firms concerned having been attracted by inducements such as the investment grant. The firms rent the factories, and the question now is whether we can attract more and more industry of the right type to our industrial estates. We have had our share of problems. Last year we had the closure of the R.N.T.F. but the Labour Administration succeeded in getting Plessey to take over the factory and this company we hope will prove one of our great growth points.
In addition to industry we have dairy farming and hill sheep farming, and tourism built round Loch Lomond, the Firth of Clyde and the mountains. That is why I say that we are, in effect, a small Scotland, with all of Scotland's problems.
We have another great product of Scotland, too—whisky. I have no doubt that this is a good debate in which to introduce that word, because we have the largest whisky complex in the whole of Scotland. I was at the opening of one of these places a few years ago. It was opened by the Prime Minister. He was not then Prime Minister, but Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade. When Ministers can take under themselves titles such as this, do we have to go to Her Majesty the Queen and ask for additional honours? On that occasion the present Prime Minister rolled out a barrel of whisky. There was plenty in that barrel, but there is gey little in this present Measure.
Perhaps even in a maiden speech I can speak of my constituency's educational scene. There has been a lot of talk from the benches opposite about comprehensive

education, but in Dunbarton county we decided to go comprehensive way back in 1960—and the council was not Labour-controlled. This process has gone on in many areas, and we have found that comprehensive education has fitted well into the scheme of things. One thing that people who argue against comprehensive education failed to realise is that the way in which Scotland was going the shortage of teachers for junior secondary schools was unbelievable. We were finding that the educational system for junior secondary schools was at the point of collapse.
As to the costs of education, we have been told by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who is the Scottish Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, that the additional expenditure to be allowed for primary education in Scotland in 1972–77 is £4 million. In the 1967–72 programme, and that also covers our school-building programme, it will be £7·4 million. Let us now look at the picture for 1972–77. With a new town being built at Cumbernauld, which is part of the shire, we have a continuing need to put schools there, and in that five-year period it is estimated that seven primary schools will be needed, at a cost of about £1·7 million. For extensions to secondary schools—to meet the raising of the school-leaving age—and for other schools becoming comprehensive, we shall need £2·2 million, and another £4 million will be needed for new secondary provision in Cumbernauld—a total of £7·9 million.
Then there is the question of the replacement of primary schools. The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Education and Science has intimated that we are to say goodbye to primary schools built in the last century. In Dunbartonshire we need 20 new primary schools as replacements and if we work to the time scale announced by the right hon. Lady we shall want about £4 million for that work. That means that Dunbartonshire alone could eat up the whole of the Ministry's financial provision for Scotland.
I am quite sure that Dunbartonshire will not take advantage of the Bill. Some parents in the area will undoubtedly continue to send their children to Glasgow schools. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) argued


very strongly about this situation, but as I am supposed to be speaking non-controversially I must allow his words to speak for me. Nevertheless, I must say that we are here faced with the carrying on of privilege.
Clause 1(4) states:
An education authority shall not exercise the power conferred by subsection (2) above unless they secure at all times adequate provision of free school education for their area …
What is "adequate provision"? Does it mean that no child shall have part-time education? No children in my constituency have part-time education, but some children go to Glasgow, which has four secondary schools with that form of education. This is an important point. If adequate schooling means that every child shall have full-time education, can we safely leave with the Secretary of State for Scotland the authority to say, "You are not fulfilling the provisions of the Measure, and we shall not allow you to have such fee-paying schools unless this provision is adequately made"?

5.49 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Ian Campbell) on an excellent maiden speech which was delivered with great confidence. The hon. Gentleman struck the right non-controversial and harmonious note when he spoke about whisky. He cannot go wrong if he continues in that way.
If I may with great humility give the hon. Gentleman one word of advice, he should not allow the words of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) to come into his own mouth. We prefer the hon. Gentleman's own words and we hope to hear from him many times.
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on introducing the Bill so early in the Session. I was a little apprehensive to begin with about my right hon. Friend's intentions, because his first two Bills were what can be described as of the consensus variety, if not actually Socialist in flavour, which any Government might introduce. I was therefore glad when my right hon. Friend introduced this Bill, which puts right one of the most vicious restrictions on free-

dom imposed by the Labour Government. I am sorry that the architect of that—the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock—has left the Chamber.
I do not know what others found, but in my constituency during the Election the abolition of fee-paying schools was one of the most burning issues [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I am talking about my experience in my constituency, and I have no doubt about that. I am glad that my right hon. Friend is fulfilling his election pledge to restore this freedom so soon.
If I had had any doubts about the wisdom of doing this, everything that was said in the rather dreary speech of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock—I am sorry to say this in the right hon. Gentleman's absence—confirmed me in my conviction that my right hon. Friend was right to restore the former position.
I say this on what I believe to be purely practical grounds, because we must assume that both parties, however much we may quarrel, are genuinely interested in getting a good education system in Scotland. What is the principal factor which is stopping us from doing this? Hon. Members opposite seem to suggest that all that is wrong is what they call the socially divisive character of fee-paying schools. If one looks at the problem of education in Scotland objectively—I know that it is very difficult to do this—one recognises that what is wrong is not the fee-paying system but lack of money. That is why classes are so large and teachers are so few. We were told today that we are 3,000 teachers short. That is why so many schools are still in slum conditions. Provide more cash from people able to pay and all these problems would be solved.
In his recent mini-budget, to employ the colloquial term, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced increased charges for school meals—not to penalise the poor, which is what hon. Members opposite have suggested, but to get more money from those who can afford it in order to provide better schools. The restoration of the fee-paying system is another step in the same direction of getting more money into education from those who can afford it.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman justifies fee paying as a revenue-producing factor in Scottish education. Is it not unfair that the extra revenue to pay for the whole of Scottish education should come from a few parents in Edinburgh and Glasgow?

Mr. Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman had not interrupted me he would have heard me develop this argument, because I intend to come to it.
Hon. Members opposite also want to get more money into education, but their way of doing it is not directly by personal contribution, which is our way, but indirectly through higher taxation. If the last six years have shown anything, it is that the system of high taxation has been tried and found wanting. Not surprisingly so, because under it the only way in which a parent who wants better education for his children can get it is by persuading 50 million other people to submit to the extra taxation needed to pay for it. By the time he has done that his children are well past school age. Contrary to this, we wish to encourage a system that is an incentive to individual effort so that the parent who wishes something different or something that he thinks is better can go out and get what he wants in a fee-paying school.

Mr. Dick Douglas: How can the hon. Gentleman square his concept of individual incentive with the Prime Minister's television statement that the only way that people can provide schools is to do it collectively? The Prime Minister said that people could not provide schools or roads by themselves but must do so collectively.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman may listen but he obviously does not take in. It was perfectly clear from what my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor said that the raising of these charges was to provide money which would go to make better schools and better hospitals and all the things which can be provided only on a communal basis. I want to get more money into education without the tremendously high taxation that the Labour Government had and which did not produce the goods.
We are in a way aiming at the same thing, but we go about it in a different way because, contrary to the way in which the Labour Government proceeded, we wish to encourage a system that is an incentive to individual effort so that the parent who wants something different or what he considers better can go out and get it.
I advance this argument, not because it helps the rich, which is what hon. Members oppsite always suspect, but because I can see no other way of getting the extra cash into education. I should like to see, not just the restoration of the fee-paying principle, but an extension of it throughout the whole of Scotland; because, unless this system is extended so that people who can afford to pay do pay, we shall not get the necessary improvements. What I say is addressed not only to hon. Members opposite but also to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I advocate this, not on idealogical grounds, but on practical grounds, because it has been conclusively proved that the universal provision of everything we require through the social services demands such a high burden of taxation that the end result is falling standards; whereas, if it is possible to make a personal contribution, almost inevitably it will result in rising standards.
It is often argued by hon. Members opposite that to allow parents freedom to make efforts and sacrifices on behalf of their children is unfair to children whose parents are not willing to make such efforts and sacrifices. This is where the State and the social services should come in—to help children whose parents will not help them.
It is a very dangerous doctrine that because all parents will not make a sacrifice no parent should be allowed to do so. For if it is wrong for parents to be allowed to strive for their children's education at school, what about parents who strive to bring them up well at home? Could it not be equally argued that it is just as unfair that some parents should take more trouble than others at home and that therefore all children should be removed to the care of an impartial benevolent State institution at birth so that they can all get the same fair treatment throughout their lives?
It is a very dangerous road that hon. Members opposite are travelling in seeking to curtail a parent's right to do the best he can for his child. It may come—I do not deny that it probably does come—from the highest form of idealism, but it is utterly unnatural to curb a parent's right, and if the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite were carried to its logical conclusion in this matter we should be led straight to the brave new world of 1984.
Nor am I convinced when I am told that fee-paying schools are socially divisive. Surely the substitution of area schools would be far more socially devisive because children who live in professional middle-class districts would go to professional middle-class schools whereas those who live in working-class districts would go to working-class schools all their lives.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that although area schools are satisfactory for secondary education they are in some way unsatisfactory for primary education? In other words, is he saying that area schools are socially divisive in the secondary sphere but are not so divisive in the primary sector?

Mr. Galbraith: I have merely been pointing out that children who live in a middle-class professional area would, if these schools were abolished, go through their lives attending professional middle-class area schools, which might be all right for them, whereas children from predominantly working-class areas would always go to working-class area schools where there would be no pupils other than from the same class, and we should lose the valuable cross-fertilisation which at present takes place.
They would be rigid, class-conscious schools drawing their pupils entirely from the rich or poor areas surrounding them. The only way in which a parent could choose would be to move house, and I believe that this happens in America. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite want to import that American habit here?
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always saying that we should help the specially handicapped child, and I agree with that. However, what about the specially gifted child living in poor surroundings? What

chance has he in a poor district school where there will probably be no tradition for staying on longer to develop his potential capacity? He would be under far stronger pressure all the time from the example of his fellow working-class pupils to leave school as early as possible.
The division lies not between the rich and the poor but between those who regard education as valuable and those who do not. Those who regard it as valuable must shrink from the irresponsible leap in the dark which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock invited us to take last Session, when he sought to abolish our fee-paying schools. We are glad for the wisdom of my right hon. Friend in restoring this system, which has served Scotland extremely well in the past, and I challenge any hon. Gentleman opposite to say the opposite.
The trouble with hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they are always wanting something new. They thought that nationalisation would solve all our industrial problems, but a fat lot of good that was. They think that the comprehensives will do the trick in education, and in the word "comprehensive" they see a magic cure for all ills. I put it to them that the comprehensives may prove to be as much a false god in education as nationalisation has turned out to be in the industrial sphere. We do not know, and until we do know it would be unwise to throw away our well-tried fee-paying school system.
An American educationalist was recently quoted on this subject in the Glasgow Herald as having said:
You should stop quarrelling with educational excellence merely because everyone cannot have it right now.
We should be well advised to accept that warning.
There is no reason why the two systems should not exist side by side. By all means let us have the new comprehensive experimental schools, but where they are most appropriate, which is in the new towns which are going up all over Scotland. Then let us compare the end product of those new schools, individually and socially, with the end product from the well tried fee-paying schools and then decide which is best. But let us not destroy, for the sake of what may be a passing fashion in education, schools which have existed for centuries and which have


contributed men of the highest calibre to the service of the nation.
I wish to end on a constituency note. I ask my right hon. Friend not to destroy, for the sake of tidiness, the Jordanhill College School which, although it is not a local authority fee-paying school, is a unique school which has a fine tradition and is highly esteemed. I urge him to grant to it the same reprieve that he is wisely giving to the other fee-paying schools, so to enable the Jordanhill College School to continue to serve future generations as well as it has served past generations.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. David Lambie: I am pleased to have been called to speak in this debate because I know that my predecessor, Archie Manuel, would have contributed were he still representing Central Ayrshire.
He was known affectionately by hon. Members on both sides of the House as "Archie" and his many friends will be glad to know that after serving this constituency for 25 years he is now retired and is enjoying life in his home in the West Highlands.
I have been told by hon. Members that Archie's name appears in HANSARD more frequently than that of any other hon. Member, mainly because of his interruptions and points of order. During his 25 years here he was not prepared to allow a statement to go by without challenging it, if he thought it should be challenged. I am sure that at times you needed all your power, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to get him to resume his seat. With his hot Highland blood, Archie could not stand a wrong argument. He could always see the truth in any case, especially if he was deploying it.
I now represent Central Ayrshire, one of five constituencies in Ayrshire. Although this is the first constituency that I have represented, I appear here after having fought five parliamentary campaigns. Indeed, I have been fighting elections since 1955. Hon. Members will realise that I have travelled a hard road to get here. Having got here, I shall be staying for a long time. I shall do so by giving the same service that was given by Archie Manuel—and while I hope that after I have served my constituency for 25 years similar words of affect-

tion will be used towards me, I trust that I shall not give you too much trouble, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I promise to behave myself.
It is not very difficult to remain a Scottish Labour M.P. Indeed, if the present Government continue to introduce policies similar to those which they have introduced in the last six months there will be many more Scottish Labour M.P.s. Even the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), will find it difficult to get re-elected. The people of Scotland recognise that the Labour Party carries out policies which are to their benefit.
In one way, I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill: it shows that they are trying to implement a promise which they gave to the people of Scotland at the last election. They are carrying out something which they said they would carry out. However, I hope that the spokesman who winds up the debate from our side of the House will assure us that quick action will be taken when we regain control to rescind this Measure. During the last five-and-a-half years we have had too many committees and commissions on education in Scotland. I am fed up with commissions on education. It is a traditional English method of shelving decisions on education. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will give an assurance that they will do away with fees, not only in local authority schools but in any sector of education, and that they will do away with grant-aided schools and independent schools.
The Bill is irrelevant to Central Ayrshire because there are no local authority fee-paying schools in it. Fee-paying in local authority schools was brought to an end in Ayrshire in 1946. In fact, the Bill is irrelevant to the majority of Scotland because it deals with only a very small proportion of children in educational establishments.
It has been said that the Bill affects primarily Glasgow and Edinburgh. That is not so. It affects a very small minority of the children who attend schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh. In Glasgow and Edinburgh there is a comprehensive system which was brought into being by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). However, although


the Bill is irrelevant to the people of Scotland, an important principle attaches to it, and it is on that principle that I should like to speak.
It has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock that we have a tradition of comprehensive education in Scotland. No one can deny that. Anyone who tries to deny it, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) did, shows not only that he was not educated in a Scottish school, but that he knows nothing about conditions in education in Scotland.
We have always had a democratic tradition of education in Scotland. From the time of John Knox, when our neighbourhood schools were introduced, we have jealously guarded that democratic tradition. We have said that every child, whatever his family or social background, should go to the school nearest to his door. It has been a Scottish tradition that children—whether they be the children of ministers, doctors, teachers or dustmen—should go to the same type of school. The Bill attacks this principle. There is a different tradition in England. I can well understand right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite knowing more about the English tradition than the Scottish tradition. There is an aristocratic tradition of education in England.
Because of the tradition in Scotland, we can stand up proudly in this House or anywhere else and say that the standards of education in Scotland are among the highest in the world. Although we have one or two faults, mainly due to the lack of money, we can still say that Scottish education is among the best in the world. The reason for this is that everyone in Scotland has been interested in the State system of education. If the State system is bad in my area in Ayrshire, it is bad not only for working-class children but for the children of my family. That is why in Scotland there has been an education lobby which has taken in all sections of the population, demanding better standards of education in State schools.
A clear guide to educational standards in Scotland lies in the qualifications and standards of the teaching profession. Over 50 per cent. of Scottish teachers are graduates or graduate equivalents. In the secondary sector, whether private or

local authority, every teacher is not only a qualified graduate or graduate equivalent but is forced to take a year's training at a teacher training college. Under 20 per cent. of the teachers in England are graduates or graduate-equivalents, and very few of them have been forced to take training in a teacher training college. English standards are certainly coming up to Scottish standards, but they are still far behind.
Because of the Scottish tradition of local State education, our public schools are the State schools. It is our job to ensure that our public schools in Scotland supply the best possible education for the children.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) say that he could quote evidence of a demand among the teaching profession in Glasgow for the retention of fee-paying schools. I do not mind the hon. Gentleman speaking about Perth, but I object to his speaking about conditions in education in Glasgow. As a former teacher, I say that the last person I would ask for an opinion on education would be a headmaster—I say that with all due deference to you, Mr. Speaker. I would go to the teachers for such an opinion.
As a former leader of the teachers in Scotland, and a former chairman of the Glasgow branch of the Educational Institute of Scotland, I can tell the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire the opinion of teachers in Glasgow. They have clearly stated that they are in favour of the abolition of fees. I say to the hon. Gentleman: do not ask five headmasters; ask the 7,000 Glasgow teachers what is their opinion as expressed through their representatives.
As a representative of the teachers on the local joint consultative committee with the Glasgow Corporation, I have on many occasions put forward a case on behalf of Glasgow teachers for the withdrawal of fees. The teachers are in favour of the Labour Government's proposals, not of the Conservative Government's proposals.
I hope, therefore, that at this late date hon. Members opposite will recognise the traditions of Scottish education, and realise that by continuing with a policy of fee-paying schools they are cutting into


the comprehensive principle. No matter how we camouflage it, we cannot have a comprehensive system of education and still allow fee-paying selective schools. It is impossible.
I am not pessimistic. The Bill will come into operation, if it is passed, on 1st August, 1971. Before that, we shall have the local government elections. I am quite sure, and the right hon. Gentleman is also quite sure, that when the results are announced, at least from Glasgow, after the May elections, Labour will again have control of Glasgow Corporation. We should never have lost it. We lost it through stupidity and fighting amongst ourselves. Speaking on behalf of Glasgow and Glasgow Labour Party, I am quite sure—I shall get into a row with some of the hon. Members for Glasgow present for stating this—that Labour will again have control of the city of Glasgow. I realise that I am speaking in the presence of some ex-Glasgow councillors, who may be a bit to blame for the situation, but I hope that this time they will have a little more courage and that they will stand up against any reactionary forces, no matter from which direction they come, and that they will advise their colleagues who will control Glasgow after May to do away with the fee-paying schools.
Whether we are defeated tonight or not, we shall win on the streets of Glasgow in May, though, I am not so sure about my friends in Edinburgh. They are a snobbish lot there, and fee paying and snobbery go together. But even the people of Edinburgh are beginning now to wake up. It will be a proud day for this side of the House when we can say that Royal Edinburgh, with all its traditions, is under the control of the Labour Party.
Irrespective of the result tonight, we shall then deal with the fee-paying schools in Edinburgh and bring them into the comprehensive system of which we are all proud. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts and will have listened to the appeal from this side of the House, because, to use a football chant, "We are the people of Scotland".

Mr. Speaker: Order. I now call an hon. Member from Edinburgh. Mr. Clark Hutchison.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I am pleased to be able to congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) on his maiden speech. I greatly enjoyed it. The House will have seen that he used very few notes and spoke in a very competent manner. He did not seem to be at all nervous—as I am now. He spoke with great affection of his predecessor, Mr. Archie Manuel, whom certainly all Scottish Members greatly liked. I am glad to hear that he is well and I should like to know how he is getting on with his fishing.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, was very definite in his views. That is all to the good. We look forward to hearing him again, both in the House and in our Scottish Committee. I congratulate him on a very competent effort.
In general, I approve of the Bill. The Government have done well in introducing it and reversing decisions which were wrongly made in the last Parliament. If education is a major function of the local authorities, it is wise to give them a good deal of freedom on how they should act, subject always to the maintenance of standards both of staff and school buildings. Giving a fair degree of freedom to local authorities tends to involve people in educational matters and policies in their own areas much more than if education is handled solely by the central Government. Involvement is a desirable end, or, at least, so I am told. That is my main reason for supporting the Bill, but there are others.
It seems clear from views expressed and the number of seats won and held in local elections, in both Glasgow and Edinburgh, that the majority of people in those cities favour the retention of fee paying. I see no objection to parents contributing financially to their children's education, taking a close interest in it, and endeavouring to obtain the best education for their children that they can. That is a basic right, and it is recognised as such by the United Nations.
The fee-paying schools in Edinburgh have always been excellent. They are popular and they produce first-class pupils. Why, therefore, tinker with institutions which are functioning well and


setting good standards and a good example? It is a little difficult to arrive at exact figures of the consequences if fee-paying were to be abolished. The fees help considerably with the educational budget. If they were abolished more finance would have to be sought, either through an increase in the rates or through additional taxation. Taxes and rates, we all agree, are high enough already. This would also lead perhaps to damage to other schools because possibly there would be less money to maintain or improve them.
Another point which deeply concerns Edinburgh is that at present the fee-paying schools draw pupils from all parts of the city. This leads to a better mix than if one has schools drawing only from small areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) mentioned what is happening in America. I happen to know that what he said is true. The comprehensive system in America has led to difficulties because people get the idea that certain schools—I think that the Americans call them neighbourhood schools—are good and they want to buy property nearby so that their children can go to those schools. Thus the comprehensive system is, as it were, eaten into and one develops social divisions based on class or finance. Fortunately that is not the position in Edinburgh. I hope it never will be.
Lastly there is the question of geography. Any major upheaval in the education system in Edinburgh will lead to great difficulties because of the exact placing in the city of the various schools. If we had a completely comprehensive system, in some parts of the city we should have a great number of schools, and in other parts we should be short of schools. We should not be doing any good, and children on the south side particularly might well suffer. It would lead eventually to more funds being needed to erect new schools, while in other parts of the city we might be pulling down quite reasonable schools which were not required. It is a rather complex matter, but I assure hon. Members that that is so, and I think that my hon. Friend will be able to confirm it when he winds up the debate.
I am certain that the best policy is to leave alone those schools which are

operating well and to concentrate all funds and resources on those which are less good, which are short of staff or which for any other reason require attention. That is a practical way to make progress in education, not only for our children today but for the children of future years.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to study with the education authorities of Edinburgh their school building programme. Keeping the fee-paying schools has benefited many of my constituents and many others in Edinburgh, but even so there is a shortage of schools, particularly on the south side. Will he look into this and do what he can to encourage the Edinburgh authorities to build there? There is, for instance, one old school which is not satisfactory and should be closed, which will bring greater pressure on school building in the south. I ask my hon. Friend to look into this problem. If he will get in touch with me in the next month or two, I shall be most grateful.
I congratulate the Government on fulfilling one of their election pledges and reversing the decision made by the Socialist Government, and I look forward to the retention of fee-paying schools in my own city of Edinburgh.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: This is a miserable Measure with which to occupy a day in the House. The Government should be made fully aware of what they are doing. They are using an English majority to force on the people of Scotland a policy which they do not want and a policy which that English majority itself rejected as far back as 1944. What a farcical situation.
I must say in passing that, when listened to the two opening speakers talking about the procedure used in this instance, it was news to me, though I welcomed it, that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) are now, in contrast to their earlier days, converted to the new theory that the internal policy of Scotland should be determined according to the wishes of the people of Scotland. If they would care to come and sit on this bench at any time, we should welcome them in


pursuance of that conversion. It is a little sactimonious, coming from that quarter, but they are nevertheless right in saying that there is no mandate for the Bill. The people of Scotland firmly rejected the policies of the Conservative Party as put forward in its manifesto, yet the Conservative Government now propose to use their majority elsewhere to put through a policy which is not followed elsewhere and to impose it on the people of Scotland.
I have a question on the procedure to be followed in this case. What is to happen to the Bill if it becomes an Act and we then have the Consultative Assembly appointed in Scotland? We do not want to have to spend our time constantly passing Bills to re-introduce fee paying in Scotland. If the Consultative Assembly reflects the present political complexion of Scotland, even approximately—which is a reasonable assumption—and if the Assembly resolved that it did not want fee paying in Scotland, what would happen to the Bill? Should we then have another Bill rescinding what we are doing and putting us back to the 1969 Act, or what should we do? I should like to hear an answer to that question in the winding-up speech, although I suspect that the recommendations coming from the Assembly would simply be ignored as having no force.
The policy now put to us is in itself bad. The phrase "socially divisive" has already been used about it, and one does not have to subscribe to any of the doctrines of Transport House to accept that as a matter of fact, not opinion.
If I may now speak about Edinburgh, not as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) did, as a representative of that city but as one who was educated under its system, it seems to me that there are only two methods of gaining entry into a fee-paying school in Edinburgh. Either one must have parents of sufficient cash and or initiative to get one in, or one must be creamed off as one of the three or four pupils a year from each of the non fee-paying primary schools into the fee-paying element on the scholarship basis provided for in the Bill. Those are the two methods. As a result, the pupils in the fee-paying schools are composed of those particularly early developers or bright pupils at the age of 11 who are taken from the non fee-paying

schools or those whose parents hold such a position in society that they are able, presumably, to exert influence in public policy and discussion of education in the city.
The Secretary of State said that the Bill maintained the right of every child to a free school place, and that was not affected. What sort of free school place? In fact, under the almost apartheid system of education in Edinburgh, it is a second-rate free school place which is offered. It is well known that any child who has gone through the non-fee-paying sector of secondary education in Edinburgh is at a disadvantage in his choice of career, his prospects of entry to university, and so on, later in life.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock referred to the point made in 1969 by my late hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie. He was speaking with the authority, to which I cannot pretend, of a former convener of education in his county, and he was criticising the basic snobbery behind this proposal. He was a man—I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about him—who had all his life fought that sort of attitude in our society.
The Secretary of State has talked of the prestige of the great fee-paying schools. They have it. In Edinburgh, James Gillespie's and the Royal High have brand new, marvellous buildings as well. They are well equipped. This is a consequence of the policy which I have described. If the whole of public attention and prestige is centred on certain schools, it will tend to follow, whether as a matter of deliberate policy or of accident, that resources are piled into these places to maintain their prestige and reputation, while the non fee-paying schools will tend, certainly in the older parts of the city, to carry on in older buildings and receive altogether less attention.
I have found in the last year that there has been a genuine change of heart among people in the middle-income group in Edinburgh. They had forebodings about what was done in the 1969 Act. We must understand that. For parents with children at present at school, the changes over a period of some five years or so would obviously present considerable upheaval, and there was, therefore,


a good deal of resistance. But I believe that parents in that income group with children below school entry age were looking forward to a situation which would have sorted itself out by the time their children would go to school, and they were genuinely looking to the time when they would not constantly face the dilemma of whether to pay fees, whether to try to opt out of the non-fee-paying and non-selective sector of education.
The logic of the Bill will lead to some peculiar distortions. The chairman of the City of Edinburgh Liberal Party tells me that the convener of education in Edinburgh, Councillor Knox, told parents—whether at a meeting or not, I am not sure—in the Cramond area recently that there was no need for them to demand an extra large primary school in Cramond because they could perfectly well afford to send their children to fee-paying schools. That is where the logic of the Bill leads, producing a totally divided system of education.
We ought to look at this matter not only from the standpoint of the parents and pupils but from the standpoint of the teaching profession, too. In this connection, I thought that the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) was most valuable. Teachers themselves are entitled to expect that, when they enter the profession, they, too, will not have to make the choice, if they go into certain local authority areas such as Edinburgh, between two basically different types of school.
This is the first Measure on education put before us by the new Government. Eighteen per cent. of our children in Scotland in primary schools, a much larger proportion than in England, are in classes of over 40. If we go ahead with the raising of the school-leaving age, Glasgow alone will be 700 or 800 teachers short. There are many other measures to which Ministers ought to be bending their minds. The fact that they rate this Bill as a priority Measure is a significant indication of their general political philosophy.

6.39 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: To hear a lone Liberal, who is here only by the skin of his teeth, talking about

mandates is pretty rich. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) also referred to whether we had a mandate to do this or that. The right hon. Gentleman should be rather careful. His party scored a lower percentage of the votes cast in Scotland at the last General Election than at any election since 1935. It was certainly well below 50 per cent.
In the context of mandates, we are dealing with a Bill which is applicable specifically to Edinburgh. There, out of seven seats, four are Conservative seats. A verdict of four out of seven shows that the people of Edinburgh presumably support such moves as fee-paying schools. I can honestly tell the right hon. Gentleman that a good many representations have been made to me on the subject and that for every representation which has been made to me against fee-paying schools, I have had at least 10 saying, "Please bring back fee-paying schools". That is my experience.

Mr. Ross: Will the noble Member, therefore, introduce an Amendment in Committee to say that the Bill will apply only to Edinburgh?

Earl of Dalkeith: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that an irrelevant intervention like that is likely to sidetrack me, he is probably right.
A great many arguments have been adduced on this subject over the last year-and-a-half. They have been rehearsed backwards and forwards. I fully subscribe to the view of the Chair that tedious repetition is not necessarily desirable. With some immodesty, however, I make one exception to that, and that is when I have made a particularly good point which I propose to try to repeat tonight.
One argument which transcends all others concerning fee-paying schools is that it should be a matter for decision by the local authority. I believe in devolution to the extent that in matters such as this, responsible local authorities like Edinburgh and Glasgow should be allowed to make up their own minds whether it is right that they should have fee-paying schools. That has been the general situation in Scotland over the years irrespective of the political complexion of local authorities. Some have decided to get rid of fee-paying schools and others have kept them.
This has not been a party political issue up till now. It is only right hon. and hon. Members opposite who seek to make it a party political issue. It is they who introduce arguments about its being socially divisive. It is something which they have whipped up. I plead with them occasionally to regard devolution as being good and to realise that people are able to make up their own minds in places like Edinburgh and Glasgow.
In Edinburgh, of course, it is a very important matter. About 7·5 per cent. of primary schoolchildren are at fee-paying schools, and in secondary schools 16 per cent. It is, therefore, a sizeable number of children. Parents are always making representations to me that they should be allowed to have freedom of choice. The Conservative Government believe in freedom of choice and for that reason I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the Bill.

Mr. David Steel: The noble Lord, who is a constituent of mine, must know that many people from Edinburgh come down to the Borders and envy our educational system. They regret that they have to make this wretched choice in the City of Edinburgh and wish that they did not have to make it. If we could re-jig the educational system so that people were not forced into making this horrible choice, they would welcome the change. That view has certainly been expressed when they have looked at the educational system elsewhere in Scotland.

Earl of Dalkeith: That is a ridiculous argument. The hon. Member will be suggesting presently that housewives who go shopping deplore having to make a horrible choice between bananas and oranges. No doubt, the hon. Member would suggest that they should be offered bananas only. That is most illogical. In talking, as he did, about apartheid, the hon. Member was being more ridiculous than people who seek Communists behind every hush. I hope that he will not pursue that line again, particularly as a Liberal. It is a most illiberal line of thought.
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward the Bill. I ask him to ensure that local authorities will have the right to decide for themselves whether to have fee-paying schools.

That is the transcending argument in favour of the Bill.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. James Lamond: It is with more than the usual nervousness of someone making his maiden speech that I make mine as a Member for an English constituency intervening in this debate about Scottish education, but I shall explain presently my special interest in the subject.
First, however, I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor, whose seat I took when he retired at the recent General Election—Mr. Charles Mapp, who was well known in the House, a fine constituency Member and a man who built up his majority at each succeeding election on the basis of his friendship with the electorate and his keenness to serve Oldham, East. He was particularly interested in housing and was a well-known and authoritative speaker on that subject in the House. I am glad to be able to report that he is enjoying his retirement, just as is Mr. Manuel.
I should like to say something, too, about Oldham. It is not the most romantic of places, particularly when going there from Scotland, but the country surrounding Oldham is beautful. The road from Huddersfield to Oldham enables one to see some magnificent views of the West Riding of Yorkshire and it is surprising, when one dips down from that road into Oldham, to find such an industrialised town.
Oldham has, of course, been based upon the cotton industry, which has been severely hit during the last two or three decades, but I am glad to say that it is recovering and that new industry is coming in. I should, however, like to have spoken in earlier debates about the necessity of making an area like Oldham a development area, so that it might have shared in the prosperity which was brought to Scotland by the policies of the former Government, which were very successful in the part of Scotland where I reside.
I promised to explain my interest in Scottish education. As you may have guessed from my accent, Mr. Speaker, I am a Scot resident in Aberdeen. I have been very glad to see my Member of Parliament here today taking a keen interest in the debate, although I hope


that he does not intervene to say that there is a great demand in Aberdeen for the return of fee-paying schools, because I could quickly disprove that.
I have been a member of the education committee in Aberdeen for some years and I well remember the battles that we had when trying to pursue a progressive, enlightened, forward-looking education policy. It was way back in time that we abolished fee paying in our local authority schools. There was a considerable outcry at the time and an attempt was made—not on our part, but by our opponents—to make this a political issue. As time has passed, however, and we have progressed—I think that our education commitee is one of the most progressive in Scotland—this matter has been completely forgotten. It was not mentioned at all by anyone to whom I spoke during the recent election campaign in Aberdeen, nor has it been referred to for many years, because the people now realise that it is an irrelevancy when one considers the standard of education that one wants for a city. It plays no part in deciding whether a school is a good school or a bad one.
I am sorry to see this as the Government's first Bill about Scottish education. There are many problems in Scottish education and we have heard about some of them today, for the debate has widened considerably. They include a lack of modern schools, not sufficiently rapid modernisation of old schools, shortage of teachers, and shortage of money. They all come down to shortage of money. If the Government are trying to justify the Bill on the ground that it will provide money for Scottish education, they do not grasp the magnitude of the problem, for the amount involved will not begin to meet the great need for much more money for Scottish education.
I appreciate how much was done by the Labour Government, as much as they were able to do, imprisoned as they were by severe financial difficulties, and I appreciate that the new Government have financial difficulties. But to scrape the bottom of the barrel and to justify a Bill of this kind by saying that it will give financial help to local authorities in difficulty is a nonsense.

6.51 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) on making his maiden speech on Scottish education. It is refreshing to find a Scotsman who has sought a constituency outside Scotland but has taken the opportunity to make a maiden speech about education in his native country. We all greatly appreciated what the hon. Gentleman said.
We have had three maiden speeches today and all three hon. Members demonstrated that they were well able to stand up and speak up for themselves. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) is not now here, because I should have liked to cross swords with him when he said that it was not difficult to remain a Labour Member of Parliament in Scotland. I was delighted to hear how Archie Manuel was enjoying his fishing, but had he been here, I should have reminded him that he lost his seat to Douglas Nairn, who died this week.
As so much of the heat and controversy surrounding the Bill concern Edinburgh and Glasgow, as a country Member I should like to approach the subject slightly differently. The major difficulties in education are probably centred in the larger cities. While it may be dangerous to generalise, might it not be wise to approach the Bill with a view to providing adequate education facilities in our cities? We must be certain that any steps we take will improve those facilities.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said—I hope that this is not true—that children who were not going to the fee-paying schools in Edinburgh were getting a second-class education. In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) gave the figures to show that 7½ per cent. of primary school pupils in Edinburgh were in fee-paying schools and 16 per cent. of the secondary school pupils. This means that in Edinburgh the vast majority of pupils are in non-fee-paying schools. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles says that these children are getting a second-class education.
If that is so, is the hon. Gentleman convinced that by getting rid of the fee-paying schools we shall help the other children? If he can prove that, he may make me change my mind. What are the results of the examinations? Do children who go to fee-paying schools have better results than the others? We may get an authoritative answer from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, but I have the impression that the former have slightly better academic results.
It may be argued that that is unfair, but the hon. Member also said that a certain number of the best pupils were creamed off by the fee-paying schools while the rest were there because of their money. I do not believe that any hon. Member would have any justification for saying that a child was more intelligent if his parents had money. It therefore appears from the hon. Member's argument that the fee-paying schools in some way have a slightly superior system, for they seem to be producing better results.

Mr. Douglas: I am somewhat disturbed by the arguments of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), who is my Member of Parliament. I trust that he will not import into the County of Fife, with its noble tradition of education and its system and standards, the type of fee-paying school which seems to be prevalent in Edinburgh and other parts of the country. I am sure that Labour councillors in Fife and elsewhere would strenuously oppose such a suggestion.

Sir J. Gilmour: As the hon. Member knows, we had fee-paying schools in Fife, but they have been abolished. It is the whole tenor of my argument that I am prepared to be convinced that all fee-paying schools should be abolished so long as good reason can be shown for doing so.
What is worrying me is that I heard the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles claim that pupils who were not going to fee-paying schools in Edinburgh were getting a second-class education. Unless he can show me that by abolishing fee-paying schools he can raise the whole standard, I shall argue that it would be better to keep fee-paying schools and see what can be done to raise the others to that standard.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman wonders why there are slightly better

results in the fee-paying schools in Edinburgh than in the State schools. One pertinent reason is that classes in fee-paying schools are universally smaller, that there are more teachers per pupil than in the State system. When resources are so allocated, is he surprised that fee-paying schools do better?

Sir J. Gilmour: If that is so, and I am prepared to accept what the hon. Gentleman says, surely the next argument is not to get the fee-paying schools down to the average ratio of teachers, but to take steps to see that sufficient teachers are recruited to raise the State schools to the better average. Surely that is a better way in which to set about making an improvement. It should be remembered that the parents concerned, in addition to paying fees, are already paying full taxes and full rates.
The historical background has been mentioned and it has been recalled that in 1944 fee-paying schools in England were abolished. What was the climate of financial affluence at the time? What did people believe would happen in the immediate post-war years? Are we so certain that if it were right to abolish fee-paying schools in England in 1944, it is now the right way to set about improving education facilities in Scotland for the 1970's and 1980's?
Because of the vicissitudes of elections, the political control of a council may change from election to election. Control of one city in Scotland was recently decided by a draw out of a hat, or a pack of cards. Is it good for education for schools to be controlled at one moment by one political party which will retain fee-paying schools and at the next by a party which will abolish fees? There must not be such a see-saw.
Quite apart from what is said in debate and in Committee and the result of the elections in Scotland next May, those who are interested in these schools would be wise to have a long, hard look to see whether this is the only way out of the difficulty of bringing in parental choice and allowing people to make a contribution. No hon. Member can say that making a contribution to the cost of education will not help. The hon. Member for Oldham, East said that this is only a drop in the bucket, but all drops in buckets collect together and make a lot of liquid in the long run.


Not only in education but in other spheres people should be encouraged to make a choice how they employ their money so that it will do the most good. This should apply to the National Health Service as well as to education. Is it right to deny people the opportunity to do this?

Mr. William Hannan: May I get clear exactly what the hon. Gentleman is proposing? Is he arguing that the payment of fees should be extended beyond the provisions in the Bill and that fees should be charged for all schools? Will he clear up the contradiction between what he says and what the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education said—that the question was not fees, but selectivity? I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that.

Sir J. Gilmour: I cannot clear up contradictions between hon. Members and my hon. Friend; that must be between them. The contradiction which I find is that we are saying that we will give local authorities power to levy fees—not that they must do so—which means that it is likely that one authority will charge fees and another one will not, with the result that the legislation will be brought into disrepute. If the choice that is given to people to make a contribution towards improving the standards of education does not work in that way, I suggest that the school authorities should find another way of doing it. Offhand I do not see a way, but it is worth thinking about.

Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he is talking about parents paying money to improve education in Scotland as a whole or paying a little extra so that their own children may get more than other children?

Sir J. Gilmour: I am arguing not that some children should get more than others, but that competition between schools is good for education. In my constituency there is competition between the schools in Cupar and St. Andrew's.

Mr. Lawson: That has nothing to do with the matter.

Sir J. Gilmour: Education has to do with more than money. You will agree,

Mr. Speaker, that money does not produce the best teaching—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not invoke the aid of Mr. Speaker.

Sir J. Gilmour: I beg your pardon. It is not finance that necessarily produces the most dedicated teachers and the best schools.
I believe that it is better on balance to retain the present system, but I am not certain that it will last well into the future. Unless it can be shown that by abolishing fees the standard of education in Scotland will be raised, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should consider whether in the long run this is the best way out of the difficulty. I wholeheartedly support the Measure.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate. I have a big constituency interest in selective schools and until now I have not been able to participate in the debate on the fee-paying schools, or the selective schools. I have read the previous Second Reading debate and most of the Committee proceedings and the subject has been well ventilated in the House. I would like to come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) criticising my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for crying "Eton, Eton, Eton", and suggesting that my right hon. Friend always brought Eton into the debate. Of the four back-bench hon. Members on the Government side who have spoken three are Etonians, and this has some relevance in a debate on Scottish education.

Sir J. Gilmour: I am one of the hon. Members mentioned who has been to Eton. I claim that Eton is a fully comprehensive school and, having been there, I can say that I am dedicated to comprehensive education.

Mr. Carmichael: I will recount what Sydney Silverman upheld to a gentleman who said that he had been at Harrow. Sydney Silverman said, "Harrow must have been comprehensive or you would never have got in." I do not mean this remark to apply to the hon. Gentleman, but it is relevant to the debate.

Mr. MacArthur: Who is the third hon. Member on this side of the House who has been at Eton? If the hon. Gentleman is referring to me, I was not.

Mr. Carmichael: No.

Mr. MacArthur: I have four children in State schools in Scotland. I do not know to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Mr. Carmichael: The debate had gone on to a low key or I should not have raised this, but if the hon. Member will go over the hon. Members who have spoken on this side he will find there are at least two.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting biographical and autobiographical.

Mr. Buchan: I think my hon. Friend is right. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) and the aristocratic hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) are all Etonians.

Mr. Carmichael: This is not a cheap point; it is a relevant point. I know that the Under-Secretary of State who will be winding up the debate feels strongly that until the Scottish Conservatives begin to represent the people of Scotland they will never have more than 22 or 23 seats. It was when the Glasgow, Cathcart Young Conservatives struck out on a new line that they began to get places, because they broke away from their traditional image. I am glad that the old ties were able to strangle the Cathcart Young Conservatives so keeping them within Cathcart and not letting them out, so that we have 43 Labour constituencies and about 20 Tory constituencies in Scotland.
The question of measuring the intelligence of young children on their entry to fee-paying schools was raised by several hon. Members. I have a strong constituency interest here. Woodside has a much higher proportion of children at fee-paying schools than any other constituency, including that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) which probably comes second. In the constituency which I represent and in which I live there are several nursery schools for training children to sit for the entry examinations to fee-paying schools.

I think that we should continue to call them selective schools. "Fee-paying" is a complete red herring.
My daughter was at one of these nursery schools with no intention of going on to a selective school. On some occasions when I went to collect her at lunchtime, I saw kids of four and a half running out of the school and I heard them saying, "Mummy, mummy, has a letter come for me?" They were waiting for the results of examinations for entry to three or four of the selective schools. These kids—they were not kids; they were babies—knew at four and a half whether they were failures, because, no matter how their parents tried, the tension was there.
One of these nursery schools is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hillhead. I saw this many times. I have lived with this tension of many parents gathered at the school gates wondering which examinations their children were in for and how they had done. Neither my wife nor I had any intention or thought of having our child involved in that kind of atmosphere.

Mr. John Brewis: Has the hon. Gentleman had experience of children trying to get into a university and the tension that that involves when they are at a more impressionable age?

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman is rather conceding that privilege is involved in selective schools enabling children to do much better in university entrance examinations because they are at selective schools. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the tension is better or that the cachet of having been at a selective school gives a child a better chance? There are many in Glasgow who feel that with that cachet, all else being equal, they will get in. In fact, certain educationists in Glasgow have said publicly that, all else being equal, the child from the better family will be accepted.
There is another side to it.

Mr. Edward Taylor: If this kind of thing has been said, may I ask whether there is any evidence of it? This kind of argument about discrimination in universities and schools is not fair unless the hon. Gentleman has any hard evidence. Has he?

Mr. Carmichael: I cannot at the moment give the hon. Gentleman the quotation. I have read it. I will give the hon. Gentleman the quotation later. It is from an educationist in the city who said that, all else being equal, he would take the child from the superior home. I will make the point and give the hon. Gentleman the quotation later. I am sure it is taken as a matter of course, but there is a quotation.
I am concerned about the child who does not manage to get in. There have been one or two particularly tragic cases of children who did not get in when all the children in the neighbourhood did—particularly in a school like Hillhead. I must be honest. I am more concerned about the well being of the child than the type of school. If I lived within the catchment area of Hillhead School, round about Cecil Street, I should be tempted to send my child, despite my principles, to Hillhead, because I should not want her to be completely distinguished at an early age. This is what happens if a child is unable to get into a selective school.
A number of cases have been brought to my attention which are even worse than a child not getting into a particular school when all his friends have. These cases concern families where the eldest child has got in but the other children have not. So it not merely a pecking order within the district, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said, but within the family.
Having spoken to many parents who are ambitious for their children, I believe that they go about it the wrong way. They think that they are doing their best for their children, but, in doing so, they cause them great tension, particularly if there is a split in the family when one child gets through its test and the other does not. The situation in the family is then well nigh unbearable. I can give some terrible examples of this happening.
I believe that the selective school is too inflexible. Strangely enough, everybody has been telling us that it is more flexible to have this choice. I hope that my hon. Friends have shown that there is no choice at all. It is a myth to suggest that there is any choice for the majority of people in Glasgow or Edinburgh. The majority have no choice at all. The selective schools, as we know them today,

are a reflection of the public schools in England. Public schools served their day, but they are out of date with the movement of the world now.
The hon. Member for Hillhead suggested that we are always trying to change and looking for something new in education. One reason is that the world is moving very quickly and we must keep adapting and continue to look for new methods of educations. The methods of the public schools were fine for the days of empire when this was important. But we are moving to a totally different type of situation now. The public schools system and its reflection in our selective schools goes right through the whole educational system. The bright boys and girls are given the most attention. In my area there is no doubt that the highest class is classics; next comes the double language class, and so on down the scale. Therefore, within the schools there is this division. We are in grave danger, if we are unable to reverse the situation, of getting a system of education where the best will not be brought out of each pupil. The bright children will be forced into the classical class, because socially that is regarded as the best class for the child, and children with the greatest—

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman is out of date.

Mr. Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene.

Mr. MacArthur: I apologise for not rising. I said that the hon. Gentleman was out of date.

Mr. Carmichael: I wish I were. My information from parents and schools is that the classics and double language classes are still considered the highest in the school. I am sure that when the next Government—a Labour Government—introduce legislation to get rid of selectivity, Glasgow at least will have moved with the times and will not be required to abolish this system which is anachronistic, petty and disruptive to social order in our cities.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I very much welcome this opportunity of speaking to the Bill. I particularly welcome the straightforward and commonsense way in which it was proposed by my right hon. Friend.
Having listened to the debate for about three hours, I am struck by the pragmatic, empiric, reasonable attitude which has been adopted by nearly every hon. Member on this side, compared with the rather doctrinaire dogma invective which, with one or two exceptions, has poured out from hon. Gentlemen opposite. This indicates a certain basic logic and reasonableness on this side of the House.
I am particularly glad that we are at last getting a little of that into this whole question of education because it seems to me, and no doubt to many of my hon. Friends, that for some years there has been an awful lack of commonsense and, indeed, a lack of awareness of the interests of the children and of the parents. These have for too long been ignored and forgotten. Instead, we have had these rather dubious and ill-documented theories about comprehensive education, selectivity and so on, from hon. Gentlemen opposite, with their vague and often irrelevant ideas of social engineering. They are irrelevant to the main purpose of education, which is to educate the child, and not to alter the structure of society. I am glad that my right hon. and hon. Friends are to put an end to this nonsense, I hope once and for all, and to reinstate a system which the parents endorse.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has left the Chamber, because I wanted to refer to something that he said, but perhaps I would nevertheless be in order to take up the point because it was raised by one or two other hon. Gentlemen. The right hon. Gentleman claimed at one stage that parents did not endorse this fee-paying system, but in almost the next breath he said that so many parents were queueing up to get their children into these schools that there was no room for them. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. That is precisely what freedom of choice means. If parents want to send their children to fee-paying schools, they should be allowed to do so. If they do not want to send their children to such schools, they will not.
In his excellent maiden speech, the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) brought up the question of Aberdeen, and he is right in saying that we shall not have a problem there as

long as he is Lord Provost. I am sorry that he is leaving that appointment. No doubt he and his friends will not reintroduce the system but if, in May, the Conservatives and Progressives get back, and they want to introduce this system, and the people of Aberdeen want it, we say that they should have the chance of bringing in this system. Surely nobody can object to people being given a chance to make up their own minds? That is all we are saying, and the same applies to Edinburgh, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel).

Mr. Buchan: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given us that information about Aberdeen. He must understand that there is no contradiction between parents objecting to the fee-paying system and still queueing up to get their children into such schools, because the existence of the situation forces parents into competing for entrance. This is the problem. In Edinburgh the people who do not wish to have the fee-paying system nevertheless have to continue it. There is no contradiction there. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would think a bit more.

Mr. Sproat: I think adequately, I hope. I simply do not accept that. It is demonstrable rubbish, as is shown by the fact that so many parents in Edinburgh put in a Conservative and Progressive Council. They want this system there. They have what they want, and I am glad that my right hon. and hon. Friends intend to see that other places have the chance to give parents the opportunity to make a choice if they want it.
The only thing that should count is the ability of the child. What we are doing is introducing a system which gives every child the opportunity to have the education best suited to him. That is all that we are standing out for. The objective of creating the maximum opportunity for every child to do the best for himself and to grow up in the academic atmosphere best suited to him is one which in my opinion the Bill advances. There are, therefore, a number of grounds on which I support it.
The first ground is this whole question of quality and high standards in these fee-paying local authority schools. They


provide a very high standard of education, indeed. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. In fact, it is evident from the number of university places that they win. It is evident, too, from the fact that so many parents wish to send their children to them. I therefore say that there is no serious dispute about the fact that these schools provide a high standard of education.
It seems to me almost incredible that hon. Gentlemen opposite should wish to tear down and destroy something that is good, something that is in fact excellent, something that has been of so much benefit to the children of Scotland and to Scotland itself over the centuries. Their attitude seems almost incredible, especially at a time when, as we have heard this afternoon, education in Scotland is in such bad shape. When things are bad, one does not tear down what is good. One tries to build what is bad up to the standard of what is good.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the abolition of fee-paying schools by the local authority in Aberdeen tore down the structure of education in that city? What is he doing to restore it?

Mr. Sproat: That was before my time. It is not my business to interfere in local authority matters. One thing that hon. Gentlemen opposite fail to realise is that we are not telling anybody to do anything. We are giving other people the power to do it if they want to. I made this point to the hon. Member for Oldham, East. If his lot are thrown out in May, which I hope they are, the new lot coming in will have a chance to respond to the wishes of the people, if those are their wishes. That is all that we say.
To tear down something that is excellent—and nobody disputed it when I said that these schools provided high standards—is an educational crime of great magnitude. I am glad that we are not going to do it, and that we are reversing what hon. Gentlemen opposite did.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that about two years ago, by some misfortune, his "lot" as he referred to them gained control of the City of Aberdeen. Since

then, whenever they have attempted to interfere with the comprehensive system of education put forward by the Labour Party they have been smartly turned out. They have done nothing but lose seats since then, and they have no chance in May.

Mr. Sproat: That is a matter of opinion, but I advise the hon. Gentleman not to make it a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It does not mean that just because they were anti-comprehensive education they were thrown out. I think that the hon. Gentleman may get a big shock next May.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to hold the curious opinion that if everybody cannot have something, then nobody should have it. This seems to me appalling. It is egalitarianism gone mad. It is harmful to the best interests of the children. It is harmful to the best interests of society. I am therefore glad that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not connive at the destruction of excellence in our schools and are determined to strengthen and build up high standards and quality.
There is another ground on which I welcome the Bill. There are those who object to this Measure because it contains an element of payment and an element of selectivity. I do not want to go into the question of payment because that was dealt with by my right hon. Friend, but £20 to £40 a year does not seem a gross imposition, particularly when there are bursaries, provision for free books, and so on.
Nor do I want to go in detail into the question of selectivity, but in a reasonable and gentle speech my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) asked for evidence that selectivity was bad, and that comprehensive education had proved its worth. I believe that when streaming takes place in comprehensive schools nine out of 10 children remain in the stream in which they were put when they started. I am all for flexibility, but it shows that it may be difficult to draw a line in these matters. But, because it is difficult, it does not mean that a line has not to be drawn. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) said, the line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise one gets a ludicrous situation in


which one says that everybody should go to university. There must be selectivity somewhere. In this particular case, I support the Bill because it seems to me that the element of selectivity has given us a higher standard in education, and that is what we so desperately need at this time.
Also, we have heard a lot of play with this word "divisive" and we have seen the usual Pavlovian reactions we get from the other side of the House whenever this syndrome comes up in any form. I entirely disagree that this system is divisive and that it is harmful. On the contrary, I believe that if this system were scrapped for ever it would be unfair. Indeed it would—not for the reasons hon. Gentlemen opposite are stating. It would be unfair to the bright child and the clever child. I can never understand why it is that hon. Gentlemen on the other side will rightly admit that children who are less clever, who are disabled in some way, need special care and attention, as indeed they do, but, having admitted that, still refuse to admit that the clever child, the intelligent child, equally needs special care and attention—to bring him on. It is no use the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) saying "Nonsense". If he wants to interrupt let him get up and say so.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I have not opened my mouth.

Mr. Sproat: I am very sorry if I have wronged the hon. Gentleman. I thought he said "Nonsense", but if he did not do so I apologise to him.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I have been listening with great care.

Mr. Sproat: It is certainly true to say that the non-fee-paying schools in Scotland give a very good education indeed. That has been admitted, although some disturbing things were said by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles about this which I sincerely hope are not true in Edinburgh. They do give a good education, but it is also equally indisputable that fee-paying local authority schools are generally regarded as giving education more suited to the abilities of the gifted child—[Interruption.] a "better education", if hon. Members like, but I am not going to split

words with the hon. Member: a better education—but that means giving intelligent children a better chance of developing their own abilities completely and fully.
I believe that bright children, intelligent children, are entitled to be given this sort of educational atmosphere. They should have it. Bright children should not be sacrificed on the altar of Socialist principles, as hon. Members opposite would seek to do. Their futures should not be put at risk because of the passing and crude fashions which happen to take the fancy of hon. Gentlemen oposite. Yet this is what would happen if hon. Gentlemen opposite had their way.
We in Scotland have a long tradition of bringing forward the bright children from whatever part of the community they come, of giving them the chance to develop their abilities to the fullest. This is what we seek to continue and encourage by this Bill. That is a tradition which, as I say, I believe we must preserve. That is the equality in which we on this side of the House believe, the equality of opportunity for every child to have the best schooling suited to his abilities, and not the spurious egalitarianism we have had from the other side of the House this evening, which tends in the long run—I defy anybody to disprove it—to reduce the general standard to the level of the lowest, or towards the level of the lowest. This is an appalling thing which hon. Gentlemen opposite will not recognise. What we on this side are standing up for is equality in education for every child whatever his background, whatever his parents do, if he has the ability.
Further, it is very interesting that staying on at school after 15 is something which is done much more in fee-paying schools. It is something which both sides of the House want, provided we get the staffing and the buildings, as we hope. On both sides of the House we want to see that, and I cannot understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to put a block in the way of the child wanting to stay on at school. It seems self-evident from the information we have that the boys and girls in these schools learn to value education, learn the meaning and value of education, and so do want to stay on, and give themselves a fuller life.
Another reason why I welcome this Bill and which I just want to touch on is that it does guarantee a measure of freedom of choice for parents. This is a principle which I entirely endorse. I would just pick up what was said by my right hon. Friend, how vital this is in religious education. I am very glad that this debate here this evening has set at rest many worries which particularly Roman Catholics have had about what hon. Gentlemen on the other side would have done if they could have had their way.

Mr. Dempsey: No. Unfair.

Mr. Sproat: Not at all. This is a perfectly fair thing to say. Ask the Archbishop in Glasgow what he thinks about it.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State went on the radio and broadcast a speech in which he said that the Labour Government and their members stood by the famous Education Act. 1918, which guaranteed the right of Roman Catholics to have their own schools and appoint their own teachers?

Mr. Sproat: I think there is a difference of opinion between what you hold and what other hon. Members opposite hold in this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Member must remember that I do not hold anything.

Mr. Sproat: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
However, returning to the question of freedom of choice in education, I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm tonight that we on this side of the House believe that, within an acceptable educational framework, what we want to do is to give maximum choice to the parents and to exercise minimum compulsion by the Government. That is our maxim. That is what we are going to stand by. As I said earlier I do not think this is affected by the fees element in this case at all with the provision of bursaries, free books, and so on.
With regard to this whole question of freedom of choice of parents there is one

small point which I should like to make. If we are to try to attract new industry to Scotland it is very important to realise that one of the factors, which particularly business executives look for, is excellence in education. Until now we in Scotland have had this excellence and I very much hope that we shall continue to have it. This will continue to be a factor. Also we must get better housing, if we are to attract business executives and business prosperity to Scotland.
Talking of housing, I would say that one of the most obnoxious results of the policies advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite—it has been referred to already—is the breeding of educational "ghettoes". I must say this it is a very unpleasant phrase, and I do not like to give it further currency, although, happily, its connotations and circumstances are not known in our country. However unpleasant a phrase it may be, it is also a very unpleasant thing. On many occasions it has been said by hon. Members opposite and others that parents, in order to be able to obtain for their children a better education, want to buy houses in areas where there are good schools. This seems to me the most odious way of buying one's way into better education for one's children, and I am surprised that hon. Members opposite will not recognise this. Indeed, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles—I am sorry he is not here—used the word "apartheid". I hope that hon. Members on both sides will try to avoid the use of extreme language. I know that a number of us here have seen apartheid in South Africa. It is totally abhorrent to us, and to take a word like that and to apply it to a system of education like this is absolutely grotesque and devalues the currency of political thought. I hope that hon. Members will desist from that.
The last reason I have for welcoming the Bill is, as I said, that it establishes a variety of types of education and also gives freedom of choice to the parents. I must say that I welcome any sensible extension of this variety and of this freedom, but I fear that the proclivities of hon. Members on the other side of the House, are in favour of trying to reduce this variety and this freedom. What has been borne out by one or two speeches of hon. Members opposite is that their destruction of educational excellence


would not stop at destroying the fee-paying local authority schools, criminal though that would be. They would go further down the path of destruction.
I think that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) put this totally unambiguously when he said that he wanted to destroy every type of education in Scotland that was not local authority non-fee-paying. If I am doing him an injustice I am sorry, but that was my understanding, and certainly plenty of hon. Members opposite believe that and would like to destroy the great grant-aided schools of Scotland.
We have Robert Gordon's in Aberdeen, an institution of the highest academic excellence. I say that it is threatened by the attitude of hon. Members opposite, that they would do away with it, if they dared, and if they were in power, and would deny the children of Aberdeen the opportunity, which children there have had for so long, of going to this great school and benefiting from this sort of education.

Mr. Clark Hutcheson: Could my hon. Friend explain how the Aberdeen Grammar School has been destroyed by the Socialist Party and their beliefs—a school dating far back in history, which my own son attended at one time?

Mr. Sproat: I agree with the implications of my hon. Friend's remark. It is a tragedy. In Aberdeen, we had, and thankfully still have, some of these splendid schools which were "mucked about" by the gentlemen of Aberdeen Town Council, of the same party as hon. Gentlemen opposite, who look like spoiling an excellent school with traditions long-rooted in Scotland's past, which has given great service to Scotland and which should go on doing so. I hope that it has not been spoiled beyond redemption, but it has been spoiled and that is typical of what hon. Gentlemen opposite do when they try to put their absurd social engineering theories into practice at the expense of the children of our great cities.
The principle for which the Bill stands is vital. I am very glad that my right hon. Friends have done this, because it seems to me that they are taking a stand for the other educational institutions—certainly the grant-aided schools, and no doubt the independent public

schools which hon. Gentlemen opposite would also like to destroy. They want to destroy the great educational institutions of Scotland. We will not let them: since that is what I take to be my right hon. Friend's intention, I greatly welcome the Bill.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: There is little to be said for the Bill except possibly that it is introduced in fulfilment of an election pledge. But it is a pledge which would have been better left in the pawnshop. The Conservative Party, if they are technically in a position to implement their promise, are presenting a Bill for electoral and political reasons in fulfilment of a pledge, and not, so far as I can see—certainly not from anything I heard in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), which lasted for almost 25 minutes—with anything of an educational reason to justify the Bill. That is an important point to stress.
Not only is this a miserable Bill, as has already been said, masquerading in the guise of an enlargement of freedom: it is also a mean Bill, because it is trading upon the natural anxiety of parents to do what they can, to sacrifice themselves to do what they consider is best for their children. Any parent, when the Bill is passed, and when local authorities act upon it, may feel that, by paying the fees asked—£20 to £40, estimated by hon. Members opposite—he is in some way getting something better for their children.
Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) very fluently and clearly stated the dilemna of parents in Edinburgh. There is, to echo a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), no contradiction whatever between a parent opposing a system with which he disagrees and doing the best he can within the system for his children. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are presenting themselves in an unnecessarily bad light by maintaining such a callous and superficial view of human nature. This is a matter deeply felt by many of their own constituents and certainly by many of our constituents. It is a matter of great importance. This is a mean Bill, because it is trading upon


this essential parental anxiety to do what can be done for one's children.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles pointed the dilemma and also made the observation, with which I do not agree, that the non-fee-paying schools in Edinburgh are second-rate, apartheid schools, or something of the sort. That is not correct, but then, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South cannot have it both ways. If the schools are just as good as the corporation fee-paying schools, is it not a fraud to impose some fee on parents who want to send their children to the fee-paying schools? That dilemma must be answered. What is the point of this payment? The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), in an excellent maiden speech, pointed out that the contribution which these can make in economics is puny and negligible. It cannot seriously be put forward by the party opposite that this has any contribution to make.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) was more honest than some of his colleagues, because he went the whole hog and said that he would like to see fee paying applied on an economic system. If that is his view—unfortunately, he is not here at the moment—he is bound to vote against the Bill, because the Bill proposes to introduce only a limited right to charge fees, where he is seeking an unlimited right.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) referred to the social mix and pointed out that people can buy houses in the catchment area of the schools to which they desire to send their children. Nothing can be done about that under any system. It exists under any system, so it is wrong to use that as a criticism of a system which is held forth as being desirable for good educational reasons.
The hon. Member also suggested that there was something in the nature of a social mix brought about by fee-paying schools. This social mix is utterly illusory. The fact that one draws middle-class children from different parts of a city to a certain desirable school is no kind of social mix. The kind of social mix which is needed to create the one nation which hon. Gentlemen opposite maintained that they were seeking to

create is to bring the children from the slum schools of the slum areas of the city together with the middle-class children of the town.
May I suggest that the key to this debate is the question of comprehensive schooling? I should like to bring the debate back on to that key point. The criticism that I would make and that others have made from this side of this Bill is that it is, in principle, a destruction of the system of comprehensive schooling which is now widely accepted and which, contrary to what has been said by hon. Members opposite, is accepted by people of all parties and all political persuasions, indeed, of all social strata. Hon. Members opposite, in their cooler moments—this debate has not been one of them—will appreciate that comprehensive education is generally accepted and has a wide degree of consensus among members of their own local authorities, as well as among those which are Labour-controlled.
Could I remind the House—with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since it entails reading—of the advantages which are claimed for comprehensive schooling? It cannot be taken as a level in competition with another system of schooling. The source of my quotation is the Report of the Comprehensive Schools Committee, an all-party body sponsored by teachers, parents, university and training college staff, research workers and so on. It puts very clearly the merits of comprehensive schooling. It says:
Comprehensive schools get rid of selection. Children are no longer labelled a 'success' or 'failure' at eleven.
Comprehensive schools offer children a greater variety of courses and subjects and a wider choice of educational opportunities than they had under the old system.
Every child has the opportunity to stay on at school after the school leaving age. More children than ever before are given the chance to reach O and A level standard and to go on to higher education in university or elsewhere.
In many areas comprehensive schools make better use of scarce resources by concentrating pupils and staff and equipment in a single large school instead of dividing them up into two types of school.
That is not a Socialist dogma but the view of members of all parties, of experts and educationists coming together and pooling their ideas. The document continues:
Why can't we have both comprehensive schools and grammar schools? Comprehensive


schools are schools for children of all abilities. If the most successful eleven-year-olds continue to be sent to grammar schools, eleven plus selection remains, and comprehensive schools cease to be comprehensive and become in reality secondary moderns. It is as simple as that.
We can either have the old system with selection for two types of school, or we can have a comprehensive system. We cannot have both.
That is the sober conclusion of an all-party group.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles said that parents in Edinburgh have a genuine dilemma about which schools to send their children to, and this dilemma must not be underestimated. He also rightly stressed that the education system in Edinburgh and Leith is distorted and deformed by the large number of pupils who are taken out. I think that one hon. Member opposite put the proportion at about 23½ per cent. It is difficult to obtain precise figures now because the education system in Edinburgh and Leith is fluid. Various figures have been quoted, and all agree that the proportion is about one-quarter and may be as high as one-third. About that proportion of the pupils of Edinburgh and Leith go to fee-paying schools of one kind or another. It inevitably follows that the remaining part of the school population must go to Corporation schools that are non-fee paying.
I do not need to elaborate the point, because it was eloquently made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, but it is quite clear that such a degree of selection by fee paying must distort the whole education scene in the city. Therefore, the problem for us in Edinburgh and Leith is proportionately more acute than it is even in Glasgow, where the number of fee-paying schools is smaller.
May I add one point in setting the scene, in enabling hon. Members to assess the size of the problem? One of my criticisms of the Bill is that it is a Measure brought forward early in this Parliament to deal with a problem which, though acute in its impact, especially in Edinburgh and to some extent in Glasgow, is a minority problem for the people of Scotland as a whole. If my arithmetic is correct, not more than 12 schools are involved. The number may be as small as nine. I have the impression that there were 12 fee-paying schools in Scotland in

1968 and that the number is now down to nine. I do not think that right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite seriously maintain that there is any proposal to increase that number. Perhaps some people would wish to do so, but I do not think that the more responsible members of the Government are of that view.

Mr. Lawson: Is it not a wee bit indicative of education in Edinburgh, and the fact that Edinburgh has been run by the products of these schools for so long, that Edinburgh can perhaps rightly be called the filthy city, as it has not even produced a sewerage system?

Mr. Murray: I was not proposing to touch on the matter of sewage, but my hon. Friend's intervention was undoubtedly useful. Some snide remarks have been made about the city of Edinburgh in the debate. I am not sure that such remarks are of any assistance. The advancement of democracy and the democratic process are not to be achieved by snide remarks from one district or city to another.

Mr. Brewis: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to advance democracy, why can he not leave this decision to the elected representatives on Edinburgh Corporation, who represent the people of Edinburgh?

Mr. Murray: The hon. Gentleman has a point, but I do not think that it is a good point. The overwhelming mass of educationists and people who have looked at the matter carefully, soberly and objectively have formed the view that there are not enough resources for education in terms of capacity for school buildings and otherwise. If the claims of hon. Members opposite on economy in government are valid, they must be well aware of our limited resources. In that situation, with limited resources of existing school buildings and those to be built, and a limited pool of skilled personnel for teaching purposes, the question answers itself. It is impossible to have the two systems. We do not have a choice here. One of my criticisms of the Bill is that what is held out as a choice is found on examination to be no choice at all. It is something of a confidence trick.
I do not doubt the Government's honesty. They are fulfilling an election pledge, but it is a bad pledge and a


retrograde step. Hon. Members opposite have forgotten that selection for some implies exclusion for others. There is no escape from that. What is to be the ground of that exclusion? There is some argument, though not one that I would accept, that there can be exclusion on educational grounds. But what the Bill offers is exclusion on a financial ground, which is the worst possible ground. It must be exclusion for some, because fees are paid by some for places which exclude others. There is no escape from the dilemma.
I have always been astonished that the party opposite seems to attach great importance to people paying for things, and the moral fibrosis which apparently develops in those who do not. I have never been able to understand why the Conservative Party is opposed to the principle of universal free education. There has already been reference to the astonishing fact that the Butler Act of 1944 abolished at a stroke fee-paying corporation and local authority schools in England and Wales, whereas today we are still debating whether that principle should be followed for Scotland.

Earl of Dalkeith: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the situation in England and Wales is different from that in Scotland, because there are many more independent schools in England and Wales?

Mr. Murray: I certainly agree that the system is different, but I cannot see that there is a relevant difference. This is a point of principle.
What is astonishing to me is the theory of hon. Members opposite that there is a magic virtue in people if they pay for a commodity or service. I have never been able to understand how they can object to a universal, free system, because no one is stopping them from making the maximum contribution they can. There is nothing to stop parents who are keen on fee paying from paying fees. Even though their children are entitled to free education, they can send a cheque to the local authority for the fee. They can send £30, or £40 or the full economic amount. I have never been able to understand why this obvious, simple point does not seem to be appreciated

by hon. Members opposite. If there is virtue in paying, there is more virtue in the remedy I have suggested. The logical thing is to have a free system, and if there is moral virtue in paying let them pay in addition to their taxes.
I have mentioned the 1944 Act, and reference has been made to the other Education Acts that bear upon the matter and it is perfectly true that the Bill's provisions are not materially different from those of the consolidating Act of 1962. It is important, however, to face the fact that in the light of what is now known of comprehensive education and the advantages it can bring there is an anomaly which has already been pointed out, in the assumption in the re-enactment of Section 3(4) that it is possible to reconcile adequate provision of free education and a system of fee paying. That assumption is quite invalid, for the reasons I have already stated. So not only is this a mean Bill, but it is a Bill which perpetuates a fiction which will become more and more obvious. It has been becoming obvious in the past few years, but it will become more and more obvious as the years go by.
I want now to point what I have just said with one or two illustrations from Edinburgh and Leith. I maintain, and hope to prove to the satisfaction of the House, that the Bill is in substance an attack upon comprehensive education.
If one looks at the Bill and the principle it invokes one finds exactly what the result is on the scene in Edinburgh and Leith. In Edinburgh and Leith there were the beginnings of a scheme for comprehensive education. There were disputes still in 1970 between the then Secretary of State and the education committee of the Corporation of Edinburgh, but the glimmering of light was there. The beginnings of a good comprehensive system were on the horizon. That has been undone, and the victory of the Conservative Party in the General Election is directly responsible for it.
In the central part of the city, the principles invoked by the party opposite imply the continued use of Darroch School, which is not unfairly described as a school building of slum standard—

Mr. Thomas Oswald: A slum school.

Mr. Murray: Yes, a slum school. That school will be continued as a technical annexe of Burghmuir. They imply the postponement of a full six-year comprehensive school for this area until the new fee-paying corporation school, James Gillespie's Girls, is built in another part of the city. The site which the present James Gillespie's Girls occupies cannot, until the transfer is made to the new area, be used for the building of a new comprehensive school for the central area.
For the possibility of introducing comprehensive education we are thrown back to the existing school buildings. We are left with three old school buildings—James Clark's School, James Gillespie's old school and Darroch, which has already been mentioned. The result of the Conservative victory in June, 1970, and of the retrograde principles the Conservatives have introduced and are continuing in this Bill, is complete fragmentation of comprehensive education in the centre of Edinburgh, undoubtedly setting back the programme for years.
I turn now to Leath. The continuation of Trinity Academy as a fee-paying selective school will result in a creaming off in the area, yet the secondary pupils there, who are drawn from all parts of the city, do not get the better facilities they would get if Trinity Academy were a territorial school within a comprehensive structure.
Leith Academy is an honourable institution of great age. I point out that our great educational institutions, our great schools in Scotland, have continued, whether fee-paying, charitable or non-fee-paying, with admirable persistence throughout the years. No one looking at the history of the Merchant Schools at Edinburgh, or at the great grammar schools and academies in Scotland, with their great educational tradition, can doubt that they will continue unless there is a positive act of destruction. No one can maintain that introducing and modernising the system of free comprehensive education in Scotland carries any threat at all to institutions which have been so successfully persistent throughout the years as these have been.
Leith Academy had a viable future, though not free from controversy, in a comprehensive system as outlined earlier

in 1970. Now we have fragmentation, and the recommendation of fee paying in the system of schools for Leith. We have selectivity, and the tendency is towards destruction of the old institution of Leith Academy. There is not yet a proposal to introduce fee paying to Leith Academy, but there are on the books at present two alternatives.
One alternative is to limit the intake to Leith Academy taken along with David Kilpatrick's and Bellevue Schools. If this proposal, the first organisational alternative which has been put to the education committee, is successful it will reduce the status, the quality, of Leith Academy. That is what hon. Members opposite really care about these institutions when it comes to the crunch. If that alternative is successful it reduces the quality of Leith Academy. If it is unsuccessful, the parents in the area may, as it were, by insisting that their children go there, it will prevent a balanced distribution of intakes to the three schools involved.
The second organisational alternative is to have two school complexes; Bellevue and Broughton Schools combining on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Leith Academy combining within the old buildings of Leith Academy, the old Leith Technical College and old Lochend School annexe. Once again, it can be seen that we have old buildings being utilised and, again, there can be no doubt that this alternative would reduce the quality and status of this excellent institution, the Leith Academy, of which we in Leith are so rightly proud.
I have here a letter from a constituent who pleads with me. I doubt very much whether the lady is of my own political persuasion, but she is anxious about the future of the school. She writes:
The future of the school seems to be so insecure that no new headmaster has been appointed, and the general impression is of insecurity. Surely the social structure, as it were, of Leith would receive a boost if Leith Academy were to be firmly established on an academic basis.
The implication in that letter is clear. It is that the educational policies of the Government and their party are destructive to this great school, and equally destructive to the principles of comprehensive education to which this side of the House is rightly dedicated.

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER and The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.

Whereupon Miss HARVIE ANDERSON, DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: As I listened to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) I could not understand why he insisted on referring to this Measure as a "mean" Bill. That was the most common adjective he used. I think that the exact opposite is true; that it is a generous and very fine Bill, and one of the best which the present Government have yet produced.
The hon. and learned Gentleman says that under the Bill there is no choice, but let me try to indicate to him exactly what choice there is. Under the Labour Government there was no choice for local authorities to permit fee-paying schools. The Bill seeks to give local authorities that choice. So the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong in saying that there is no choice.
Then the hon. and learned Gentleman made a proposition which we have often heard from hon. Members opposite during the debate. He said that it is right to use the education of children to alter social attitudes. This proposition seems almost to go without argument—that it is right to use the education of children to alter the social attitudes of people and in particular, although the hon. and learned Gentleman was too delicate to use the phrase, to deal with the snobbishness of parents.
I am greatly opposed to that point of view. I am all for altering people's snobbish attitudes, whether they point their noses up or down, whether they look down on people in the upper brackets or on people in the lower brackets. When dealing with education the only thing that should matter to us is what is best for the children.

Mr. Lawson: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the whole process of education is the shaping of the child in the pattern of the older generation? Education all the time is a process of

patterning the youngster from birth in the mould of his parents—sometimes a very bad mould, but nevertheless the mould that the adults think is right. What else is there to education than this?

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Practical experience of comprehensive education has not proved that snobbishness in people's attitudes is altered one way or the other by such a system.
Then the hon. and learned Gentleman made the point about removing parental anxiety. I can understand that, as a man with young children to educate. I can appreciate what a boon, in a sense, the removal of parental anxiety could be. However, I do not agree that the way to do that is simply to make no challenge or task for parents or for children. We do parents and children a dis-service by seeking to pretend that there are not challenges and that there will not be challenges in life which they will have to face up to and match. If we seek to pretend, instead, that it will all be perfectly easy, that there will never be any selection, that we can all go forward in a great herd without any of us having to worry, that in the end does not serve the best interests of children, nor of adults, nor of society.
I am glad to be able to support and congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the Bill. I recognise that it is a limited Measure, in that it is at the moment limited to Edinburgh and Glasgow. For that reason, Aberdeenshire, East is not covered by the Bill.
I imagine that in one sense the earlier remarks of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) rule me out of the debate. As I listened to his speech, I thought of the six years during which he was Secretary of State when we heard him making sonorous, rounded and splendid speeches about industry, water, fishing and agriculture. I wonder—had he been an industrialist; had he become a farmer? If the right hon. Gentleman believed what he was saying, I thought we should never have to listen to him again, except when he spoke about education or possibly military matters.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's claim that he won the General Election, he must be living in a dream world. If he had won the General Election, he would have been sitting on this side of


the House. He does his party no service by pretending that he believes in Scottish nationalism for political purposes when it suits him.

Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that of the 71 Members returned from Scotland 23 are Tories and 44 are Labour? I was relating these facts purely to Scotland.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: The boundaries would have made a considerable difference. The facts are still against the right hon. Gentleman, because no one was more extreme than he in denouncing any sort of Scottish nationalism in the last Parliament, and he is now pretending that he won the General Election because there are more Scottish Members on his benches than there are on these benches, a position which will be dramatically improved at the next General Election.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Ian Campbell), in his excellent maiden speech, said that this was a blow for privilege. Almost every hon. Member opposite who has spoken has said much the same. That is not a warning that comes well from Parliament. If ever a place was conscious of its privilege and of the importance of that privilege, this is that place. It is not privilege that is wrong in itself. It is when privilege is abused.
Exactly the same can be said about power. That is what will decide this argument. We know that neither side will win this argument tonight, although we may have our own views about who advances the best argument. The result is decided by power. My strong belief is that one of the reasons the Labour Government lost power was because of their abuse of it. This was one of the issues on which they abused it.
What I found most distasteful about the Labour Government's record in this matter was obviously not their belief in comprehensive education, which I can respect and accept, but their insistence on it to the exclusion of everything else. Such a policy is not only illiberal and autocratic. It is not necessarily in the best interests of education or of society. In cities it can quickly polarise areas of high opportunity and areas of low opportunity. Indeed, by scheduling an area as comprehensive there is a tendency for that to happen.
There can be the absurdity which is found in other parts of the world where the only solution is to bus children unnaturally and artificially very great distances to schools in other areas. The children in my part of Scotland bus long distances to school. The system is not similar, in that the necessity for that process in a widely scattered rural community is obvious and has been so for many years, although it may be that owing to the pressure on large-scale comprehensives initiated by the late unlamented Government we have deserted too rapidly and incautiously the smaller country schools.

Mr. Douglas: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that to solve the problem of rural depopulation the people in rural communities should make a contribution from their incomes to the rural schools? Then there would be the type of choice that the hon. Gentleman is advocating? Is this his solution to the problem in East Aberdeenshire?

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: No. I absolutely accept the right of the local authority in an area like Aberdeenshire to make its own plans for the best spread of educational resources in the area. My complaint has been that, because we have had this tremendous concentration on large-scale comprehensives, in my part of the world we have tended to be too quick to close down the smaller country schools in the interests of centralisation into large schools. I do not believe that this is necessarily in their interests of either the children or the community.
The position in cities can be made much worse by the sort of policies that hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to follow. If one puts all one's eggs into the comprehensive basket one is left without flexibility. One must then accept the absurdity and expense of inter-school transport to deal with the polarisation that results from concentrating policy on comprehensives.
I agree that one might ask in what way the present Government are improving the situation. Here, it might be said, is a division based on wealth which is just as bad as one based on area. I do not believe that that is arising. Fees of £20 to £40 or even of £68 to £78 a year are not so enormous—[Interruption.]—for those who wish to make a sacrifice,


which nobody is forcing them to make, for the education of their children.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that a man taking home £15 a week, as many are in my constituency and his, can afford fees of that magnitude, not to mention the buying of uniforms and so on?

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: My experience is that many people find themselves perfectly able to afford to send their children to these schools if they wish to do so and if their children are acceptable. [Interruption.] The number of applications to these schools proves this.
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything in this matter. We are merely retaining an area of choice. By so doing we are achieving a limited, though definite, possibility of introducing variety into the system, not by Government edict but by restraint on Government edict, and this is one of the most important features of the Bill.
Like hon. Members generally, I should be all for a uniform system of education if it were perfect and I should be prepared to see the Government pressing for it. However, comprehensives do not provide the perfect system. It is a good system but it is not so good that it cannot be complemented by others, especially where parents—let us remember the local authorities, which are directly responsible and are elected by the community—are prepared to pay for it. We do not need less imagination and more uniformity in our education system. We need more imagination and less uniformity, and I hope that the Bill will help to promote it.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I am pleased to have been called to speak in the debate because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) pointed out, this is an extremely vital issue in Edinburgh and Leith.
I regret that I was not in my place to hear the speeches of the hon. Members for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) and Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison). They must have made many

points about Edinburgh which I probably would have challenged. Having read the OFFICIAL REPORT of some of their speeches, I am sure that their remarks were well worth listening to.
Two broad issues arise in debating this Measure. The first is whether it is in the best interests of Scottish education that we should have fee-paying corporation selective schools, and the second is whether it is right that the Government should prevent local authorities from charging fees at corporation schools, as the Labour Government wished to do. I will devote most of my time to discussing the first issue, but first I must comment on the second.
A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite have been insisting that there is something sacrosanct in the right of local authorities to charge fees at corporation schools. They seem to imply that the central Government are not, in a host of other respects, inhibiting the actions of local authorities. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leith and others have pointed out that the Butler Education Act of 1944 operated the principle of reducing the right of local authorities to charge fees. Indeed, it is standard practice for the Government of the day to inhibit local authority action in certain respects.
It was right for the Labour Government to do it because if one believes in comprehensive education, as I do, one must face the fact that selective schools and comprehensives cannot exist side by side, particularly on the scale on which they exist in Edinburgh, for such a system completely undermines the comprehensive principle. This is the crux of the argument and the Labour Government were right to give the country leadership on the issue of comprehensive education and to follow it up logically by wishing to prevent, for example, Edinburgh from charging fees.
As I said, I wish to concentrate on the first issue I mentioned, which is the question whether it is desirable to have fee-paying schools of this type. I believe in equality of opportunity in education. I suggest that one cannot argue, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) tried to do, that charging fees at local authority schools encourages equality of opportunity.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) spoke about this in terms of a democratic freedom and he seemed to place it on the same level as the freedom of speech. What sort of freedom is it when it is confined to those who can afford it? The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East knows perfectly well, as do all Scottish hon. Gentlemen opposite, that thousands of families in Edinburgh and Glasgow do not have this freedom of choice simply because they cannot afford the fees. I accept that there are some people in receipt of small incomes who strive hard and sometimes manage to pay them, but for the vast majority of people it is not a freedom which they can choose. Is it such a freedom for those who will be in receipt of family income supplement? They cannot consider sending their children to these schools. This is not a freedom; it is a privilege.
In the Committee on the 1969 Bill the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education said that the fees were so small as to be almost irrelevant. I hope that he will not repeat that argument tonight. Surely he accepts that there are many people in his constituency who cannot afford to pay fees. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire spoke about Hobson's choice for the poor. This is a load of hypocrisy and we should not have to tolerate it.
My arguments apply to all fee-paying schools, but we are talking specifically about corporation fee-paying schools. If we are against privilege and inequality of opportunity, we are certainly against the Government and local authorities positively subsidising inequality of opportunity. It is nonsense for hon. Members opposite to counter that argument by saying that there are free places at these schools. The argument is reduced to the level of absurdity when one tries to defend corporation fee-paying schools on the ground that they provide free places. It is like arguing that we should subsidise the manufacturers of cigarettes because they give donations to cancer research.
The second argument which I would deploy in favour of eliminating fees in corporation schools was dealt with at some length by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leith. Selective schools, particularly on the scale that they exist

in Edinburgh, inevitably undermine the comprehensive system. It is not simply a question of people having to pay fees for their children to go to these fee-paying schools; the children must also pass examinations. A very large proportion of the more able children in Edinburgh from middle-class backgrounds or families which can afford to pay the fees opt out of the comprehensive system. They are creamed-off and go to the fee-paying schools—and not just to the corporation fee-paying schools.

Mr. Brewis: In view of the hon. Gentleman's argument, he should attack "the big boys"—the independent schools—not the small schools where working-class children at least get a chance.

Mr. Strang: The logic of what I have been saying is that I am against all fee-paying schools. But it was right for the last Government to eliminate fee-paying in corporation schools because they were positively subsidised by Government money.
In the debate on the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech, the Secretary of State for Education and Science acknowledged that selective schools could exist alongside comprehensive schools only in big urban areas. If I followed the logic of her argument—and she squared up to this point—she was saying that when selective schools attract a substantial percentage of the pupils in an area, they operate against comprehensive education. Only in urban areas where less than 1 per cent. of the children were going to selective schools would she argue that the two systems could operate alongside one another without undermining the comprehensive system.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire brought home that point because he said that in Glasgow the schools were of such a scale that they did not interfere with comprehensive education. But, instead of facing up to the situation in Edinburgh, he turned to another argument about the right of local authorities to charge fees. It was implicit in his speech that the selective schools are undermining the comprehensive system in Edinburgh.
Hon. Members opposite say that people's social background forms a dogma of ours. I make no apology for


that. If we are to have a genuine comprehensive system it must be made up of children from a variety of backgrounds. It is not good enough for hon. Members opposite to suggest that providing selective schools enables us to achieve that. Many people with moderate incomes save up and are able to send their children to such schools, and I applaud them for doing it. But they are creaming off predominantly middle-class children. The teachers in the comprehensive schools in my constituency regret—and they said this at my election meetings—that so many of the abler pupils in the owner-occupied areas, particularly in Portobello, are creamed off to the fee-paying schools in other parts of the city.
During the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill last year, the Under-Secretary of State intervened in my predecessor's speech to argue that the question of the territory of comprehensive schools inevitably creates the social segregation which we on this side of the House want to avoid. There is a problem here, and one in which I am particularly interested, because I have been involved in an argument with Edinburgh Corporation about the siting of a comprehensive school in my constituency. With the local people, we have persuaded the Edinburgh Corporation to move the site of the school. They accepted the argument that it is better to try to get a social mix.
Of course, there are problems. The ideal theoretical system for the purpose of social mix might be to have all the schools in the centre, and to allocate children at random to those schools. But that is impractical, so one has to strike a balance between schools sited, shall we say, in council estates and others in owner-occupied estates. The purpose can be achieved by intelligently locating schools, and it is being done in Edinburgh, which is why the Corporation has agreed to move this school to which I referred to a better site.
I agree that in Cathcart, the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State, there are large council estates and large owner-occupied estates, which makes this difficult, so one has to consider the possibility of using buses. But it ill becomes some hon. Members opposite to argue against that, particularly if they know

anything about what happens in Edinburgh, because we have this massive movement of children over the city to go to fee-paying schools on the other side.
I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, but there are still one or two points which I wish to make from my experience of the situation in Edinburgh. I have lived there a number of years. When I was a student I stayed in "digs" in a number of households and I saw the pressure which some parents put on their young children to sit the examinations for fee-paying schools. I have no doubt that many of the fee-paying schools have a certain standard of excellence. I should say this to hon. Members opposite, who probably do not accept some of my other arguments, that they should weigh in the balance the harm done to some of these young children of 9, 10, 11 and 12 who have this tremendous pressure put on them to go to these schools.
We have the absurd situation that if these children go to the local comprehensive school they are regarded as failures by their family and by people living about them. I have worked with a number of professional people, and many who send their children to fee-paying schools are against the system, but they argue that all the people they know, the people in their income group and living beside them, are sending their children to the fee-paying school. Their wives, too, want to send their children there. I admire those people who say, "No, because I am against fee-paying schools I am not sending my children to those schools." But I understand the people who do send them there.
I should have thought that with their experience, the hon. Members for Edinburgh, South and Edinburgh, North must have come across this point of view from professional people who are subjected to tremendous pressure to send children to fee-paying schools.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: My constituents wish not so much to retain fee-paying schools, but to retain what is good and what works well. They do not want to disturb the educational system. They want to put the resources to the schools which are old and badly constructed, such as the Darroch school, but not to abolish all the others, the High School, the James Gillespie and the rest.

Mr. Strang: I used to work at a research establishment in the hon. Member's constituency. One person I was thinking of, though there were many others, was a person who lived in the hon. Member's constituency. There are many who are against the system but are sending their children to these schools.
One last point is that when I think of selective school, I do not think about the high-flown arguments some of us use on each side of the House; I think about what I saw every day before I was elected to the House. When I travelled to work I used to pass the Portobello comprehensive school in my constituency. I saw the children walking along the pavement to this school, while, at the same time, in the owner-occupied estate, there were queues of cars full of children being driven to the fee-paying schools on the other side of Edinburgh.
Let no one say that that is not socially divisive. Let no one say that it does not inculcate in those children the very class distinctions in our society which we on this side of the House are committed to oppose.
In my view, the motive behind the Bill is that the Conservative party stands for privilege—not just the privilege of wealth, not just the privilege inherent in the present unequal distribution of wealth, but privilege in education, too. If it be inevitable that we must have the Bill before us, I am pleased that the Government have decided that it shall be their first piece of legislation for Scotland put on the Statute Book, perpetuating, as it does, a privilege available only to a few. They may manage temporarily to stem the tide, they may try to turn the clock back for a few years, but one day the system will be changed.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: I apologise for having missed some of the speeches in the debate, but I especially enjoyed the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Ian Campbell). The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has just made a good speech, though I do not agree with it and I shall be taking up some of the points which he made. My only comment at this stage is that his speech went more on sociological than on educational grounds.
This short Bill gives freedom back to the local authorities to decide an education issue for themselves, whether they should keep some schools which, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) said, have a long tradition. That is what the Bill is about, giving freedom back to local authorities, and it will not have escaped the notice of the House that in Clause 1(4) there is a proviso that they must make adequate provision for free education in their other schools.
I have been in the House long enough to remember the way the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) used to go on about leaving matters to the discretion of the local authorities, and how the predecessor of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, Mr. George Willis, of whom we are all fond, was always advancing exactly the same argument. The right hon. Gentleman used to refer to Huey Long and accuse the then Secretary of State for Scotland of abrogating powers. Now, however, we hear the right hon. Gentleman speaking not of leaving it to the local authorities, but of the duty of the Government to govern.

Mr. Ross: I am not sure how long the hon. Gentleman has been in the House, but he would have done better to study these things more carefully. The subject of Huey Long was introduced not by me but by the right hon. Jack Maclay, as he then was, when Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Brewis: Whether or not it was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, the example was used by him very often.
What we have to decide is whether we can trust the local authorities to look after their own education provision and the arrangements which they make to that end in their own areas. If we cannot leave these matters to the local authorities, what is the point of having local authorities? The local councillors in Edinburgh and Glasgow are responsible to the electorate. The inconvenient fact is that the fee-paying schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh are popular with the electorate. That is one of the reasons why the Labour Party does not want to leave the question to the local authorities.
Efforts have been made from time to time to suggest that parents who send children to fee-paying schools are being


subsidised by the State. In fact, the opposite is true. It is the parents who are helping the State by paying the fees. I was sorry that I did not hear the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). Both he and I are associated with the Educational Institute for Scotland. It is right to say that the council of the E.I.S., at least, takes his view rather than mine, but, on the other hand, opinion among teachers is quite divided on this issue and is far from monolithic.
In its memorandum in 1964, the E.I.S. said:
If parents choose to spend money on the education of their children over and above what they contribute to the public education service in rates and taxes"—
they may do so, and
the question of whether their additional outlay meets all or only part of the cost of their children's education is irrelevant".
We should dismiss as false the argument that parents of children at fee-paying schools are being subsidised.

Mr. William Hannan: Will the hon. Member make it clear that that passage referred not so much to fee-paying in local authority schools as to grant-aided schools?

Mr. Brewis: I am not sure that the hon. Member is right, but I am willing to accept the point from him, although I do not think that it makes any difference to my argument.
I wish to put two small points about fees. It has been argued between the two sides that the fees are very small and, on the other hand, that they are sufficient to discourage people from sending their children to these schools because they are too high. It seems to me that as parents value the education of these schools for their children, there would be nothing to prevent the operation of a graduated system of fees in these schools in Edinburgh and Glasgow. There are already a number of free places and the education authorities in Edinburgh and Glasgow are used to dealing with bursary and university applications. I suggest that they should examine the possibility of graduating the fees charged at these schools.
Although I have not heard this next point mentioned in the debate, I am sure that it has been made. A child who

gets into the primary department of a fee-paying school almost automatically goes forward into the secondary department. In my view, that should not automatically be the case. Other children should have an opportunity of taking up places if children from the primary school are not capable of doing so.
It has been said that the real issue in this debate is not fee paying, but selection in education. Hon. Members opposite are fond of the comprehensive school and regard it as the only system. Admittedly, there are very many good comprehensive schools in Scotland. It will, however, be found that those schools usually stream after the first year. It is true that comprehensive schools are traditional to many areas, particularly small towns. The arguments in favour of comprehensive schools include the fact that a good size of sixth form is possible. There are, however, other forms of education which are traditional in Scotland in the old establishments such as the Royal High in Edinburgh, Glasgow High School and others.
What we have done is to import the English idea of comprehensive education, which was derived originally from a misunderstanding of the Scottish education scene. I think it was Sir Graham Savage, the chief education officer of the London County Council, who tried to base the comprehensive school on what he thought was the system in Scotland. We have now reintroduced into Scotland the system from England.
I remember before the election, as Chairman of the Standing Committee dealing with the Education Bill, hearing arguments about selection and changing over to the comprehensive system. The Conservatives in the Committee proposed that there should be selective entry to certain schools for children who were specially talented in languages or who were good at mathematics or even navigation. All these amendments were turned down.
However, I went on a delegation to Bulgaria, a Communist country, shortly afterwards. To my great surprise, I found that in that Communist country there were selective schools for pupils in just these subjects. The Bulgarians had decided that they could not afford the waste caused by not using the talent of their best people to the best advantage.
This is also true of Russia. Ability in mathematics, for example, can be spotted at a very early age. Equally, it fades out when the mathematician is probably still quite young, say, about 40. The Russians have developed a system in which they make use of their best mathematicians and have selective education.
I quote a most unlikely source, Lord Snow giving the Clayesmore Lecture, when he said:
A society which does not choose to encourage excellence, and this particular kind of excellence among others, won't be a decent society for long.
An attempt has been made to suggest that selective schools and comprehensive schools cannot exist side by side. It is undesirable for them to do so in a small town, but in a big city or conurbation there is no reason why the two systems should not exist side by side. There can be a sufficient number of children having all the advantages of a comprehensive school.
The buildings of many of the fee-paying schools are simply not suitably placed to become territorial comprehensive schools. I am thinking of buildings like the Alan Glen School in Central Glasgow and the Edinburgh Royal High at Barnton where already there has been considerable provision of comprehensive schools in the neighbourhood.
Before the election, my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) pointed out that there was an extremely good social mix in fee-paying schools and that it was probably better than that in the territorial schools. This is because one tends to find the middle class living in one area and working-class people in another, and so there is not necessarily a good social mix in a neighbourhood school. If the fee-paying schools were abolished, there would not be a particularly large contribution made by those pupils to neighbourhood comprehensive schools.
It has been suggested that one could go in for zoning or banding or bussing pupils to try to get this mix. These are difficult subjects. If one tries to band schools, one gets people moving into an area so that they may send their children to the school of their choice. However, I end as I began by saying that these are difficult problems which are better

left to be decided by the local authority which knows best the geography of its city.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: What has struck me as I have listened to the whole of the debate has been the difference between the approach of hon. Members opposite and that of my hon. Friends. Hon. Members opposite have talked about the theory, while my hon. Friends have discussed the reality of the structure of fee-paying schools and their social effects in the cities of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) described in precise terms the social difficulties caused by fee-paying schools.
I suspect that hon. Members opposite have confined themselves to the theory because so few of them have a practical knowledge of Scottish education. I know that it will be said that there is an exception in the person of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor). But then in this respect, as in so many others, he is just a gillie among the lairds. He is the one whom they can use as the popular exhibit whenever they are accused of social prejudice. That is a rôle which I think the hon. Member for Cathcart will serve for a long time in the Conservative Party.
Those who were not themselves educated in the Scottish educational system, some of whom do not use it for their own system, do not have the same proprietary interest as those of us who have been educated in the comprehensive Scottish education system. I received the whole of my secondary education in the County of Argyll, where fee-paying schools were never heard of, never demanded and are never likely to be asked for by the people who live there. I now happen to live in the City of Edinburgh, where I moved when I went to the Scottish Bar. With a background of comprehensive education in our country areas in Scotland it is all the more alarming to view the situation in Edinburgh. It staggers me when hon. Members opposite suggest that at the fee-paying schools in Edinburgh there is a social mix. They should go to Edinburgh and stand at the gates of these schools when the children are coming out. They will see whether or not there is a social mix. If they


will then take themselves to working-class areas in Edinburgh they will see that there is no social mix there, either. Hon. Member opposite should understand the actuality of the situation.
What is wrong with having a fee-paying system? On this side of the House it is not a question of Socialist dogma, it is a feeling that to have fee paying in the local authority schools in the cities of Scotland leads to social injustice. That is why this feeling is shared by the Liberal Party.
We all know that educational resources are scarce. There are not enough school buildings to do the job properly, neither are there enough teachers. We feel it is wrong that, because a small section of the community are able to use their social influence and their money, they are able to aggrandise to themselves and their children an unduly high proportion of these scarce social resources. That is the Labour Party's real ground for criticism of fees and the system of selectivity.
The effect of fee-paying schools on other schools is another point of great importance. As has been pointed out consistently by hon. Members on this side of the House, when we take away the leading pupils in the State schools surrounding a fee-paying school and send them to the fee-paying school the class in the State school will be deprived of its head. The effect on the teachers at the schools from which the children have been removed is bound to be demoralising. It is demoralising for the children who have been left behind and does little good to the children who have been moved.
Why cannot we organise a system in which we all share the educational facilities? We all have children. They are all entitled to the same opportunity, so why cannot they all go into the same educational pool? Then we would suffer the same hardships and we would all be given equal opportunities.
That is how a sensible decent community organises its educational resources. It does not say that there shall be a small section which will be fenced by selectivity and if that does not do the job sufficiently that section will be fenced by a money bar as well. It does not say that that privileged section shall

have smaller classes taught by a larger number of teachers and that the rest outside can sink or swim according to the resources which are left. We say that because the fee-paying system buttresses selection, and results in aggrandising resources for a small section of the community it is wrong.
One unfortunate point about the fee-paying system, in the City of Edinburgh in particular, is that it puts parents who are well disposed towards the State educational system in a difficult dilemma when they come to decide where their children should be educated. I know from experience of speaking to young parents, professional people, in Edinburgh—not only Socialists or Liberals, but also Conservatives—who feel that the State educational system should be supported, that they equally feel, justified or not, that, if they do not send their children to fee-paying schools, somehow the children will be deprived. So we reach the odd situation that some parents in Edinburgh are forced, in their own view, to send their children to fee-paying schools, although they would be delighted if their children went to State schools.
Some of these parents to whom I have spoken have said, "Would it not be marvellous if this burden could be lifted from us? Would it not be marvellous if we did not have to make this invidious choice between the selfish view that we must taken for our children and the real educational needs of the community?"
I suspect that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not get involved enough in the scene in Scotland to know people with this kind of problem. This feeling is reinforced by what has been said in the debate—that the real knowledge of what happens, as well as the right ideas as to what should happen, exists only on this side of the House.
I come back to the principle behind our objection to the perpetuation of fee-paying schools. It surely cannot be right for us to allow these differences of opportunity to exist in 1970. In defence of the proposals, hon. Members opposite have said that these matters should be left to local government to decide. I find this a curious argument, and I am always suspicious of it. It is the same idea


basically as the "States' Rights" argument in the United States. If it is suggested that the Government of the United States should do something about the social problems in relation to coloured people, they say that that must be left to the States to decide. It is a curious argument and there is a certain parallel here. I am not suggesting that this issue is as serious as the problem of racial discrimination in the United States, but it is interesting to note that a similar argument is used by the two apologists.
Is it not clear that the principle of fee paying is of national significance? It is a national decision whether we should have a system of fee paying in our schools. I think that it is a decision which Parliament, if it has any sense of leadership at all, should face and take. It is a decision on which the Government should give a lead to the country instead of trying to shuffle their responsibilities on to local authorities. The local authorities are already sufficiently restricted in other ways by the activities of the Scottish Education Department. There is already a great deal of supervision by the central government. This is an area in which the decision should be taken by Parliament and by the central government.
As a last resort it will be said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, in defence of fee-paying schools, that they have to keep their election pledge that they would give back this power to local authorities. Having given that pledge I suppose they must carry it out. They will carry it out. They will also carry out the pledge that will give back £25 million to the children of the rich. But they did not keep their pledge to the children of the poor to spend £30 million on the relief of child poverty. They cut that down pretty quickly to £8·6 million. In fact, I think the net figure is £7 million.
We have some idea of the priorities of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Of course they will keep this election pledge. It is typical of the attitude of the Conservative Party. The fee-paying schools in the cities of Scotland, as those of us who live near them know in a real as well as a theoretical sense, are a class symbol. While they remain a class symbol we shall not get an educational system which gives us social justice and a sense of equality. I hope that the local authority in Glasgow will take the decision to

abolish fee-paying schools there. I am less hopeful about the position in Edinburgh, although I hope that the position there will change.
It is obvious that this side of the House will lose this battle tonight, but I do not believe that in the long term we shall lose the fight to which we are dedicated, which is to bring back social justice and real equality to our educational system in Scotland in line with its very best and ancient traditions.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Before I get on to the debate itself I should like to congratulate the three maiden speakers who have taken part, all from our side of the House. There was a curious thread running through the three speeches. As far as I could see, two of them were either provosts or lord provosts, and one was married to a provost. The other thing that links them is that all three Members have succeeded railwaymen, so I hope that they will continue to keep us on the right lines.
The hon. Members for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Ian Campbell) and Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) spoke with great knowledge, acquired from their local authority experience. In a debate which has been dominated by arguments about the freedom of local authorities it was good to hear maiden speakers supporting the view of this side of the House on this issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) brings a special voice to this debate. He spoke on behalf of the teachers. A great deal has been said about freedom for parents and local authorities, a little has been said about freedom for children but nothing has been said about the attitude of the teachers. Despite the fact that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) found five headmasters in Glasgow who agreed with him, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire has the support of 7,000 qualified teachers who accept the point of view of this side of the House.
I do not think that that is surprising, because while this is an irrelevant Bill in terms of the situation with which we are faced, it is an important Bill in terms of reflecting the attitudes, the aims, and the priorities of right hon. and hon.


Gentlemen opposite. I do not think that this Measure can be taken in isolation. If it were, to bring it in now would be utterly irrelevant. What we have been seeing over the last two or three weeks is a kind of package expression by the Conservative Party of its attitude to social, educational and other matters, and it is appropriate that the Bill is initiated by the Scottish Tories under this Government. It will, I think, long be remembered for the privileged nature of its provisions.
It is almost as though the Secretary of State has been saying, "My colleagues have been bringing forward legislation to introduce reaction. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have done their little bit, and I want my share now". He could have had his share by telling us what he intends to do about the economy in Scotland. We have had to get that from the Press, instead of on the Floor of the House. He could have got his share by telling us that he will push back the clock in terms of housing provision in Scotland, but we have had to learn bits and pieces of that from the Press, and not on the Floor of the House. Curiously enough, when the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make the kind of statement that should be made on the Floor of the House he makes it to the Press, and when he does come to the Floor of the House he spends a good deal of his time attacking the Press for failing to understand the reason for this debate.
We know the reason for it. There is nothing in the Bill which provides any reason for bringing it in. The Explanatory Memorandum says that the Bill will effect a small saving in the expenditure of education authorities. Is there any purpose in that small saving? Is it really necessary to rush in now for the sake of a small saving?
We are also told that the Bill will have no significant effect on the administrative work of education authorities. Clearly the Bill has not been brought in in fulfilment of the pledge to save on expenditure, or to save on the number of civil servants. The Government have fulfilled only one pledge, and that was the pledge to restore fee paying to education in Scotland of all countries. We are to

get this after 400 years of democratic education, 400 years of pride in our schools at which the laird's son was educated alongside the crofter's boy.
That party can bring forward as its first Bill to the Floor of this House a Measure which fulfils only one pledge—to restore fee-paying schools—and, incidentally, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, that was a pledge which was missing from its national mandate. So it is a pledge which was rejected by the voters to whom that manifesto was put, a pledge which was rejected by the very populations of the local authorities to whom that party says it is now going to give freedom to act.
This is not a Bill about education. It is not a Bill about economic problems. Indeed, the Government's economic measures brought forward over the last fortnight have little to do with economic problems. This is an ideological Bill, a political Bill, a class Bill, an expression of the Scottish Tory Party which has managed to produce only one Member who has not been to a fee-paying school. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Who is that?"] The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray). He is not here. He might have helped his party out. I think there is one other Member who was at Glasgow High School. I think someone referred to him as a gillie among lairds.
In a sense this Government, in a dispassionate, literal sense, is the most reactionary Government we have had in Britain since the Reform Act in 1832. By and large in the last century-and-a-half we have been moving towards the just society. Errors have been made, but we have expanded freedoms, we have expanded the conditions of life of and attitudes towards the workers in terms of their work and of the trade unions. By and large we have been moving towards the just society—all parties Labour, Conservative, Whig and Tory, and Liberal. Sometimes the move has been held up and when it has been held up we have called those responsible for that reactionary. This is the first Government I can think of which, since 1832, has deliberately moved the clock back, and it is alone in Western Europe—indeed, in the Western world. We see it again with this Bill.
That is the first point, but there are many other points to be made. The


arguments we have beard today have been confused, and it is not surprising that they have been confused because the Government were defending the indefensible. We had, for example, the argument on selection, an argument which was put forward by, of all people, the Under-Secretary of State who is to wind up this debate tonight. He is going to be arguing—heaven knows how he is going to do it—in defence—

Dr. Miller: He will do it. He voted for sanctions.

Mr. Buchan: He has moved down more Damascus roads than any man in human history this last week, and he will have to do it again, because he set selection in the forefront of his argument. But he can be proved wrong there. The Government do not know the facts. The truth is that every single educational theorist is rejecting selection—every single one. Hon. Members opposite try to avoid the charge of privilege through fee paying by saying that what they are concerned with is selection—at a time when the entire world of education is moving against selection in education.
Consider what even the two archpriests have said. There was once a case for it. The case was that we could select because we could predict a child's academic abilities; there was discovered the intelligence test, and as long as that remained valid there was a slight case—not a case on humane grounds but a case in terms of educational ability. It is the case no longer. The two archpriests, Sir Cyril Burt and Professor Vernon have now come round to a very different view. Sir Cyril Burt says quite simply that there is no case for selection as early as 11—anything like 11. The other archpriest, Professor Vernon, also rejects the concept that intelligence is an unchanging acquired characteristic of one kind or another. It moves, it changes, it modifies, it alters in the process of education.
Therefore, the one objective tool which existed for selection has gone. With it has gone the argument for selection within education. Therefore, hon. Members opposite cannot defend their Bill for privilege on the basis of the selection theory, because it has been rejected, not only in this country but in every other country. For example, in Sweden, streaming is not allowed up to the age of 15,

because they recognise its difficulties. The United Nations also has totally rejected any concepts of intelligence testing or streaming or selection.
This is for very good reasons—first, because it cannot be done accurately. The second reason answers many of the difficulties of hon. Members opposite, particularly the argument that there is a contradiction in our view here, that we complain on the one hand that selection is unfair and on the other hand say that in any case privilege is bought by gaining selection. How can we complain, they ask, that children are kept out of fee-paying schools, since we have rejected the selection process anyway?
The weakness is that the selection process is self-fulfilling. Once children have been selected, once it has been assumed that the children will do better, in practical fact—this might be surprising to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it will not surprise teachers—once it gets through to children that they are going to do better and once they are put in a system which says, "You will do better," they do better. The system also works the other way around. [Laughter.] If the Under-Secretary laughs at that, then he cannot have read a single word printed on education in the last 10 years.
This has been the whole basis of the argument.
There was the experience of Jacobson and Rosenthal called "Pygmalion in Education". Visiting inspectors told teachers in America that they were going to examine and grade their children. Then they said that these children, by name, were on the point of—terrible word—"blooming", that they were about to make a rapid advance in their abilities. They came back a year later and, sure enough, that group had advanced by something like 10–15, on average, measurable IQ points. Except that it was not true. They had picked them entirely at random. The fact that the teachers thought that they were going to do well meant that the children did well. The whole thing is self-fulfilling. Frankly, hon. Gentlemen opposite have no educational case at all: this must be understood.
The United Nations have also done a great deal of work on this. We need not take only American and British testing: the United Nations have also rejected


streaming. But they did something more, and this explains why the Under-Secretary laughed. The U.N.E.S.C.O. report also said, referring to the results on screening and selection:
It is, however, unlikely to modify significantly the attitudes of those who regard their prestige and security as being threatened by the implications of these findings.
This is why hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh when we give them the facts. They cannot accept this, that working-class kids, treated right and given the right schools, can be just as intelligent as these products of Eton and Winchester and Wellington. The United Nations have to spell it out for them. They can take it from the United Nations: they need not take it from me.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has already said quite clearly that the Opposition are against fees. We know that they are against selection. Is he now saying that the Opposition officially are against streaming, even in comprehensive schools?

Mr. Buchan: I said nothing of the sort: I wish hon. Gentlemen would listen. We are talking about the segregation of groups in this way. On this question of streaming, we can have a discussion in future, but certainly almost every teacher who thinks on this subject and every educationist is now recognising that the further we push back streaming in the fashion that hon. Members opposite mean it the better, and otherwise so much experimentation is being done by setting. I hope that the Under-Secretary is familiar with the word: he is after all in charge of Scottish education.
I turn to the other arguments. There was the argument of freedom. My God—the sins committed in the name of freedom by hon. Members opposite! Their hearts were bleeding earlier because of what is happening to poor children when their parents are deprived of the opportunity of pay fees—a classic case of hypocrisy. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire put the case very well. I wish that it had been the hon. Gentleman who had been advancing the argument, from the Front Bench, because he did have a consistent theory to argue. He felt that we were removing the freedom of choice only from the poor, not

the rich, because of the existence of independent and public schools. I shall be glad to be allied with the hon. Gentleman if he wants to move in that direction at any time.
The hon. Gentleman's main point was that three freedoms are involved—local authorities', parents' and pupils'. To do him justice, he and he alone referred to the freedom of pupils. The perfect answer is given not by any educational theory but by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael), who described the restriction on the freedom of children who, at the age of four or five, are already dominated by the question whether they will be selected. Someone compared such children with a boy of 19 waiting to go to university. How inhumane can we get? There is a great difference between the reaction of an adult having to face up to the problems and difficulties of life and that of a child of four or five told that he is inferior.
My hon. Friend described precisely this situation in terms of his own child, explaining why he eventually had to take the decision he did. There was no cause for an hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite to make the kind of remark about my hon. Friend in his absence which the Under-Secretary of State made. My hon. Friend made perfectly clear, along with the general argument, how pressures build up upon the child and the parent, and the deprivation of freedom in that way, even when parents are seeking to get their children into schools.
Talking of freedom, let us consider Edinburhg. Edinburgh is not an education-centred city as it should be. It is a school-centred city. It is not education that people there are worried about but the question of which school. There is an Edinburgh neurosis about schools. What kind of freedom is there for parents when they are caught up in such a rat race, when, if they do not opt into the rat race for their children, the children will feel that they are semi-failures? We now know the educational consequences of this. Hon. Members opposite should not talk about freedom when that is the kind of situation they want to develop.
Hon. Members opposite have not been arguing freedom of choice for parents


tonight. They said that it depends on the ability of the child, upon selection, but there is a total contradiction between freedom and selection. If your child does not pass the selection process, you no longer have freedom of choice. You cannot say, "I want Johnnie to go to that school", if the school says, "We are turning him down because he is not apparently bright enough." That is why the argument becomes important also for the poorer parent, because when selection is made, particularly at four or five, we know—and there is abundant evidence of this—which child has the better chance. It is the child of professional parents, the child from a middle-class home, with a richer cultural background, who is more articulate and can cope much more easily than can the working-class child with the kind of questions asked of four- or five-year-olds.
When the child of some friends of mine went for a test the headmaster put a half-crown in front of him and asked, "What's that?" The child said, "Heads". That answer was a bit more intelligent than the question.

An Hon. Member: Was he right?

Mr. Buchan: He was.
An hon. Member from the South-West who spoke about democracy will know an even finer story of the child in a country school who was shown a sheep and could not say what it was when the teacher asked. The teacher said, "You must be able to tell me what this is", and kept pointing to the sheep. "Well", said the child, "It's maybe a cross between a Border Leicester and a Sussex tup." The tests discriminate in the interests of the middle-class, professionally orientated child, and therefore the freedom of which hon. Members opposite talk is restricted. If they do not win selection, no freedom exists.
Freedom for local authorities is a very real but not very logical point, because in every aspect of public life Governments determine what local authorities can do, and within what limits. An hon. Gentleman has produced a document—I have not seen it, but it must be somewhere—about housing in Scotland. Does not that mean depriving local authorities of their freedom? It is, in fact, a much more powerful deprivation of freedom. This argument of freedom for local

authorities does not wash, and hon. Members opposite recognise it. They restrict the freedom of local authorities. They say that local authorities will be allowed a limited number of schools. Why is that? If it is a good thing, why not have an unlimited number? The answer is that they have a sense of guilt. They know that they would not get away with it. Nevertheless, it is an infringement of the freedom of local authorities, and quite rightly, too, because we cannot tolerate within the wider community this kind of privilege to operate in one area or another.
The other weakness is this: Governments have only certain powers. If they decide that two and two make five, the total still remains four. But they can give a lead, and the tragic thing about the take-over is the way in which the right hon. Lady in England and Wales and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland have avoided the question of a lead. They have not told us yet whether selection or freedom is better. They have not even, as a Government, argued the case for fee paying. But they cannot get away with this one. The right hon. Lady says that turning schools comprehensive will discriminate against working-class kids, and hon. Members opposite all say, "Yes". They think that we can plan and organise the most intricate and complex of all things, a human child, and yet say that they cannot face up to the problems of controlling and planning our physical environment to get the right kind of zones. This is another phoney, and they know it to be a phoney.
They have brought up the question of the able child. There is no evidence whatsoever—as those who watch the "box" well know—that the able child suffers at all in a comprehensive system, and there is some evidence, produced particularly by Simon and Daniells, that in the primary school it may well work the other way round. So worry about the able child is not a point.
There is the argument that people will treasure education more because they have to pay for it; because it is a sacrifice. If hon. Members opposite could charge us for the air and water we use they would charge us, I suppose, and then tell us that we would treasure water and air more. Education is as essential


to the human being as air and water, and should be provided as freely.
The most extraordinary argument of all was produced on an earlier occasion by the Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) when we discussed the Education (Scotland) Bill in Committee in 1969. He said:
If the Minister were to make a straight offer and say that, if we were prepared to withdraw our objection to his proposals about the charging of fees in corporation schools, he would withdraw his objection to selective schools, that would be a bargain that I would accept."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11th February 1969; c. 191.]
Well, we shall see whether he accepts that bargain tonight.
We are entirely opposed to the Bill. It has nothing to do with education. It is an ideological and political Bill. It is a sop offered by the Government to their supporters. Further, it cannot exist side by side, as indeed the Public Schools Commission has agreed conclusively, with the comprehensive system, because it is all about privilege and nothing else and we are opposed to privilege. We believe that what the Government are now going after is the destruction of thousands and thousands of potential late developers and achievers.
The Bill does not deal with the problems we should be facing—the problems of the change-over to the comprehensive system, the problems of curriculum and syllabus for comprehensive education, the problems I am facing in Renfrewshire of the four-year school co-existing with the six-year school and basically senior secondary schools and the inequalities thereby produced.
Above all, we are against the Bill because of the effect of the existence of such an inequitable system on the children, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodside. That is why we reject the Bill.
Nearly half of all hon. Members opposite came from Eton. [An HON. MEMBER: "A good school."] I am told that it is a comprehensive school—no problems of selection there. [An HON. MEMBER: "No girls."] It does not have girls. That is a pity. But it is a comprehensive school. In Committee the

hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) said that he was not against comprehensive education. He continued:
It has subsisted in many parts of Scotland and elsewhere. Indeed, my old school, Eton, is comprehensive in many ways, except that it does not take girls. … I will not hide from the Committee that as regards maths I was in the lowest possible form and practically bottom of that. But I shared that distinction with a boy who became a successful stockbroker. I do not know whether there is a moral in that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee; 13th February, 1969, c. 216–7.]
Yes, indeed, there is a moral in that. The lowest boy in the class in the comprehensive school became a stockbroker. This is what privilege is all about.
This is the most illiberal and reactionary Government that we have seen in the whole generation that I have been describing. In order to preserve their power today for their party, they have to indulge in social engineering. They brought in the vote for us poor benighted workers. Like the army, they do it, not through the officers, but through the warrant officers, sergeants and corporals. That is what they are doing tonight; they have brought in tonight an ageing young Tory from Cathcart as a lance-corporal to do the work of the hon. Members from Eton.

9.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): We have heard a great deal of rubbish tonight from the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) as we usually do; and I intend to prove it. Before doing so, it is only right that I should refer to the splendid maiden speeches which have been made during this debate.
We heard, first, the speech of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). Quite apart from being glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman, we are glad to hear the news of the health and, indeed, the happiness of the previous Member for Central Ayrshire, Mr. Archie Manuel. We know that Mr. Manuel will be happier in his retirement in the knowledge that he has someone as tough and as forceful as he was in this House to represent the constituency.
It was also a great pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Oldham, East


(Mr. Lamond). He, from his position of leadership in Aberdeen, has much to say about, and a great deal of knowledge of, Scottish education. He set an example which we hope will be followed by Members representing English constituencies in taking a very real interest in Scottish education. I hope that this will continue.
The third maiden speaker was the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Ian Campbell), who made a very distinguished contribution. He stressed in particular the needs of the primary schools in his constituency. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his authority will be knocking at our door in relation to the extra money which, through the efforts of my hon. Friend, has been obtained for Scotland and for Scottish primary schools.
I come straight away to the points which were made by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West. It was evident that the hon. Gentleman was adopting a very patronising attitude in claiming that he knew a great deal about education and that we on this side knew little, if anything. One listened astonished as the hon. Gentleman went through his various arguments. He said, first, that selection was nonsense. He gave us the list of professors and others who had proved to his satisfaction that selection was nonsense. He did this after a debate in which one hon. Gentleman opposite after another had claimed that the real trouble with selective schools was that they were creaming off—

Mr. Buchan: Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I must interrupt to tell him that he still does not understand the point. Shall I try again?

Mr. William Hamilton: Why bother?

Mr. Buchan: I used the phrase "self-fulfilling prophecy" and I spoke of the wealth of evidence that exists to show how privilege is involved in selection of this sort. We believe it is wrong, and I explained why.

Mr. Taylor: I was about to come on to what was, in fact, the second argument adduced by the hon. Gentleman.
When he spoke about the child with inherent abilities needing those attributes

to be drawn from him in an adequate way and how that would not happen unless the child attended a school where those abilities would be drawn from him, he was really arguing in favour of fee-paying schools of this type. To use that sort of argument for the abolition of these schools is nonsense.
It was crystal clear that what the hon. Gentleman was demonstrating was his obsession with class consciousness. He talked constantly about class in connection with these schools and how we were trying to divide society. He must know, as every hon. Gentleman opposite must know, that the proposals which the Labour Party has been pressing for universal territorial comprehensive schools throughout the cities of Scotland would, if implemented, inevitably create nothing more than class segregation—[Interruption.]—and we certainly would not support that.
Let us consider how the hon. Member for Renfrew, West displayed his ability in, and knowledge of, educational matters. He said that the job of government was to give a lead. "Why cannot you give a lead", he kept asking, in effect, and one of the things he wanted us to do was to say clearly whether we were in favour of comprehensive schools and whether we thought they were better than other schools.
If the hon. Gentleman expects to have any support for, or to gain any influence as a result of, his views on education, he must accept that a question like that in the context of Scottish education is meaningless—[Interruption.]—and shows how little thought he must have given to this matter. Does he really expect us to say that comprehensives are either good or bad when clearly the situation varies enormously from one area to another?
He must know that, for example, in a county town a comprehensive can include a wide social range, a vast range of ability, a range of background, accommodation and all sorts of things. On the other hand, a comprehensive in a city or perhaps in an owner-occupied suburb or even a slum clearance area can be a totally different type of organisation.
In asking us to say whether we think comprehensives are good or bad he is asking us to say the impossible, because as I have explained, they vary widely


from area to area according to the different circumstances. We certainly accept that comprehensives can be and are successful in certain places. On the other hand, we certainly do not believe that the situation in Scottish education is such that the Government can say to all local authorities and all parents and in all circumstances that one pattern of education is ideal in every respect to the exclusion of everything else.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West asked what was meant by "adequate provision" when we say in the Bill that fees may be charged as long as there is adequate provision for free education. My answer is that this is something which the authorities themselves will have to decide before reaching a decision to reintroduce fees.
The Secretary of State would not expect an authority to set itself an impossible task in this respect. Each authority must consider the relevant factors; and the key factor is whether the charging of fees in some schools would have an adverse effect on the staffing or other standards of non-fee-paying schools. I hope that this clarifies the position. [Interruption.] It is impossible for me to say more to clarify it.

Mr. Douglas: We must be clear about this. May we have an assurance that the standard of adequate provision will be determined by the result of an interplay of discussion between the Scottish Education Department and the local authority, and that the Secretary of State will not allow any introduction or extension of fee paying unless he is absolutely satisfied that there will be no detrimental effects on the standard of provision in the non-fee-paying sector? Can we be clear about this because it is a vital issue?

Mr. Taylor: I am quite clear on it, if the hon. Gentleman is not. I do not wish to give the impression that it will be the purpose of the Government to lay down the law and insist that we know best in every respect. The important thing is that, irrespective of what happens, the pupils must be educated and they must have teachers to teach them, whether they are in fee-paying schools or non-fee-paying schools.

Mr. Maclennan: It is a question, not of laying down the law, but of judging whether the system is providing adequate facilities for education. The question in which we on this side of the House are interested is this: will that decision be taken by the Secretary of State, or, if he is not satisfied that adequate provision is being made, will he interfere?

Mr. Taylor: The position is clearly laid down in the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman has any points of detail that he wishes to pursue, it can best be done in Committee. What we have laid down is quite clear. We shall give some responsibility to local authorities. The Opposition's intention is that the Government should lay down the law on all education matters and that they should direct from the centre. It is our intention to give power and authority to the local authorities because we have confidence in their ability to make the right decision in the right circumstances.

Mr. Ross: I asked about the phrase in the proposed Section 3(2)
in a limited number of schools".
Are we to understand that, although that is in the Bill, the Government will leave it to the local authorities to determine what is a limited number?

Mr. Taylor: If the right hon. Gentleman had read the rest of the Clause he would have seen that it was crystal clear that that is conditional on an adequate number of free places being available. Obviously the number of schools concerned must be limited if we are to provide free education for, presumably, the majority of those who will want it.
A question asked by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West and others was: what is the teacher shortage position in relation to the continuance of fee-paying schools in Scotland? Hon. Members have spoken about the wide differential which existed in the staffing standards. I have taken the trouble to obtain the latest figures. They may be revealing to hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who expressed an interest in this matter. As at January, 1970, the average pupil-teacher ratio in Edinburgh former fee-paying schools was 16·4 compared with 17·2 for non fee-paying schools in the


city—a difference of about 0·8. In Glasgow the ratio in former fee-paying secondary schools was 16·9 compared with 17·8 for the non fee-paying sector—a difference of 0·9. [Interruption.] Is the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock contesting these figures? These are facts.

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) knows very well that if the Minister does not give way he must resume his seat.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member asked me whether I was contesting the figures. I suggest that he gives the figures for secondary schools as against secondary schools and primary schools as against primary schools, otherwise the information he is giving is irrelevant.

Mr. Taylor: I have listened for hours to the debate in which specific questions have been asked, and I have information to answer every one of them. If the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock thought that this was a matter of significance, he could have asked—

Dr. Miller: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I will not give way.

Dr. Miller: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) can interrupt only if the Minister gives way.

Dr. Miller: On a point of order. I wish to accuse the Minister of falsifying figures—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Taylor: We have had a full day's debate in the course of which every opportunity was given for points to be made. We have had such weak and miserable arguments from the Opposition that they are trying to wreck a speech in which I am attempting to deal with the points which they made.
Let me deal, in the short time left to me, with the three main arguments advanced by the Opposition. We had the question about the fee-paying schools preventing people from entering because the fees were too high. The hon. Member

for Edinburgh, East mentioned this, saying that because the fees were too high it was unreasonable to have them and that large numbers of people would not be able to afford them. I wonder whether he thought for one minute what would be the consequence of his own party's policy of saying, "We will abolish corporation fee-paying schools and on the other hand appoint a Commission to look into the future of grant-aided schools"? In Scotland, where we have grant-aided schools with fees which are reasonably high, and independent schools where fees are very high, the result of that policy would simply be to provide freedom of choice for the rich only and not freedom of choice for the rest of the community.

Mr. Strang: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I shall not give way. May I give the hon. Member a few figures? I have a list of the fees charged by the schools concerned. I noticed that there was no reference to this from hon. Gentlemen opposite. In six hours' debating I have not heard one word from the Opposition about the level of fees. All I heard was from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, who said that they were excessive. For example, we have Hillhead High School, Glasgow, fees, £10 7s. per annum, which works out at about 4s. a week; Hillhead Primary School, £5 17s., that is 2s. per week; Notre Dame High School, Glasgow, £10 7s., that is 4s. per week; Notre Dame Primary School, 2s. per week. Then we have Trinity, £15 per annum. Is this considered to be excessive, about 6s. a week?

Dr. Miller: And if a man has three children?

Mr. Taylor: With three children being educated at these schools, perhaps two at the primary at 2s. per week and one at the secondary at 4s., the hon. Gentleman would have to face the disastrous consequence of 8s. a week. Are we to consider that figures such as 2s. per week or 4s. per week can be the basis of a class struggle and a class war? Far from it. The corporation fee-paying schools, admittedly in Glasgow and Edinburgh only in recent times, and probably only in the near future, were schools which bridged a gap between the independent sector, the high fee schools and the low fee schools.
I suggest that we are ensuring that the variety of education in Scotland will be considerable. The other argument is that these were class schools because only children from certain areas went there. I took the trouble to obtain a geographical break-up of where children came from who went to the Glasgow former fee-paying schools. I have a full list here and there is splendid representation at these schools from almost every postal district. To put the fears of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) at rest, the only postal district which is not represented at the Glasgow former fee-paying schools is C.2 where, as he knows, no one lives.
Thus we have a situation here that at the last count we have a fair geographical spread. This leads to the point which was so ably advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) on the question of the social mix. I think the hon. Member for Renfrew, West was right in what he said. The issue is not just that of fees but that of selectivity, too. In the corporation fee-paying schools, where there is a selective intake and relatively low fees, we have an opportunity to secure a social mix which would be absolutely impossible to obtain in a straight universal territorial comprehensive school.

Mr. Douglas: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I will not give way again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had ample evidence to make him realise that, when the Member who has the Floor does not give way, he must resume his seat.

Mr. Taylor: I have given way a great deal already. I find myself in some difficulty now, having listened to six hours of debate in which not one constructive point was put by hon. Members opposite. At least, I am entitled to a few minutes to reply to the various false arguments which have been raised.
What are hon. Members opposite trying to achieve? They say that they want to do away with class schools, they want to do away with any question of class privilege. What are they asking us to do? They ask us in the big cities to do away with the one chance we have of achieving a real social mix in our schools

by means of selection and, instead, have territorial comprehensive schools throughout. Do they believe that within our cities, where there are large areas almost all of bungalows, other areas entirely municipal, other areas which happen to be slum clearance areas, and with bungalow suburbs outside, one could possibly achieve a social mix with a territorial comprehensive system? How on earth could one do it? Far from creating a social mix, one would prevent it.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and other hon. Members offered what they regarded as a sensible solution. They accepted that in the cities as they are, it is difficult to achieve a social mix, so that we should think of transporting pupils by one means or another, perhaps by buses.

Mr. Strang: Absolute distortion—

Mr. Taylor: I shall not give way again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, who has had his opportunity, must now listen to the other side.

Mr. Taylor: It has been demonstrated that it will be impossible to achieve a real social mix within our cities unless we have some kind of selective education, and the introduction of this Bill is one means of achieving it.
We heard an interesting argument from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, repeated by many of his hon. Friends, the astonishing argument based on his conception of electoral mandate. We were told that we have no mandate to introduce the Bill. He said that, because we did not have a majority of seats in Scotland after the last election, we have no right to bring in the Bill. That was, as I say, an astonishing argument to come from the right hon. Gentleman, who, with other Members of the Labour Government of the time, blatantly distorted the parliamentary elections by setting his name to the last Government's boundary reorganisation proposals, which created an absurd situation in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman should be thoroughly ashamed of his part in that gerrymandering, which this Government will put an end to.
However, even if we accept the argument that we are in a minority in Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is right."]—it is an astonishing new constitutional


principle which we are asked to accept. Those of us who recall the pleasure of seeing the contest between the right hon. Gentleman and the former Member for Hamilton, Mrs. Winifred Ewing, when the right hon. Gentleman obviously disagreed with her policies for Scottish nationalism, will realise that he is now "out-Winnie-ing Winnie", for what he suggests is that we have no right to introduce a policy for Scotland unless we have a majority of Scottish seats. If that were the case, on what authority did the previous Government introduce a whole series of Bills affecting England and Wales when they had no electoral majority in England and when they carried through comprehensive education reorganisation in 1965 with the support of Scottish Labour Members? The right hon. Gentleman should remember that his Government introduced a whole series of measures in 1965 without a majority in England and using their majority of Members from Scotland.

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Gentle-Gentleman will excuse me if I do not give way. I have several points to which to reply. The right hon. Gentleman has been quite unfair—

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman will have to listen for five minutes to the other side of the case.
Let us summarise what the Bill does. We have had talk about force and compulsion. The one thing that, I hope, every hon. Member will accept is that the Bill does not force anybody to do anything. It restores to local authorities the freedom to introduce fees for a limited number of their schools if they wish and if their elected representatives so decide.
It has been suggested that the people of Scotland do not want this. If they do not want it, all they need do is elect a Labour council and ensure that it does not happen. Those of us who keep in touch with feelings in Scotland are fully aware that the reverse will happen.
The second thing that the Bill does is to extend freedom of choice for parents, because without fee-paying schools the

choice is only between the independent sector, where fees are high, and free schools. Thirdly, we are preserving fine Scottish schools with great traditions. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that one school in particular has produced two Prime Ministers of Great Britain and has a fine academic record. The fourth thing that we are doing is preventing the imposition of universal territorial comprehensive education throughout Scotland, and particularly in the great cities, where this creates a real problem.
I suggest that in approaching this important though small Bill, hon Members opposite have not produced one new argument which they did not introduce in 1969 or any argument which has not been demolished by my hon. Friends on this side. In approaching this educational matter, they have been about as constructive at Attila the Hun and they have been blinded by idealogy. The Government and we on this side are concerned with the real problems of Scottish education. We intend to face up to them and to overcome them.
I again counsel hon. Members opposite to realise that one does not make progress simply by destroying what is good and what has a proved record of success. What we want in Scottish education is time to build up, time to overcome the problems which we inherited from the previous Administration, which we will face up to and overcome. This is a Bill which will restore freedom of choice. It will restore power to local authorities. It is a Bill which, we certainly believe, will achieve one more step forward in Scottish education and I plead with the House to give it a resounding majority.

Dr. Miller: rose—

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Dr. Miller: (seated and covered): On a point of order. It is not yet ten o'clock.

Mr. Lawson: (seated and covered): On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) was on his feet before ten o'clock.


You ignored him, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and put the Queston. It was still not ten.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): There is no point of order.

The Chair called a Division and a Division is now on.

The House having divided: Ayes 293, Noes 259.

Division No. 22.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Emery, Peter
Kinsey, Joseph


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Farr, John
Kirk, Peter


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fell, Anthony
Kitson, Timothy


Astor, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Atkins, Humphrey
Fidler, Michael
Knox, David


Awdry, Daniel
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lambton, Antony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lane, David


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Balniel, Lord
Fookes, Miss Janet
Le Marchant, Spencer


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fortescue, Tim
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Batsford, Brian
Foster, Sir John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fowler, Norman
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bell, Ronald
Fox, Marcus
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Longden, Gilbert


Benyon, W.
Fry, Peter
Loveridge, John


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Biffen, John
Gardner, Edward
MacArthur, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Gibson-Watt, David
McCrindle, R. A.


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McLaren, Martin


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McMaster, Stanley


Body, Richard
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Boscawen, R. T.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Bowden, Andrew
Gorst, John
Maddan, Martin


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gower, Raymond
Madel, David


Bray, Ronald
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Brewis, John
Green, Alan
Marten, Neil


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grieve, Percy
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray


Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bryan, Paul
Gryils, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Gummer, Selwyn
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Buck, Antony
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Miscampbell, Norman


Burden, F. A.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moate, Roger


Carlisle, Mark
Haselhurst, Alan
Molyneaux, James


Channon, Paul
Havers, Michael
Money, Ernle D.


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Paul
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hay, John
Monro, Hector


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Churchill, W. S.
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Clark, William (Surrey, East)
Hicks, Robert
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Clegg, Walter
Hiley, Joseph
Mudd, David


Cockeram, Eric
Hill, J. E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Murton, Oscar


Cooke, Robert
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Coombs, Derek
Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey


Cooper, A. E.
Holt, Miss Mary
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Cordle, John
Hordern, Peter
Nott, John


Corfield, F. V.
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Onslow, Cranley


Cormack, Patrick
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Costain, A P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Critchley, Julian
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Osborn, John


Crouch, David
Hunt, John
Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)


Crowder, F. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Curran, Charles
Iremonger, T. L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian


Dance, James
James, David
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pink, R. Bonner


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Jessel, Toby
Pounder, Rafton


Dean, Paul
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, South)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jopling, Michael
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Dixon, Piers
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Drayson, G. B.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Quennell, Miss J. M.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Raison, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Kershaw, Anthony
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Eden, Sir John
Kilfedder, James
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kimball, Marcus
Redmond, Robert




Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)
Spence, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Reed, Hn. Peter (Dover)
Sproat, Iain
Waddington, David


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stainton, Keith
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stanbrook, lvor
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walters, Dennis


Ridsdale, Julian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Ward, Dame Irene


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Stokes, John
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Weatherill, Bernard


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Sutcliffe, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tapsell, Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rost, Peter
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Wiggin, Jerry


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Wilkinson, John


Russell, Sir Ronald
Tebbit, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Temple, John M.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Scott, Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Woodnutt, Mark


Sharples, Richard
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Tilney, John
Younger, Hon. George


Simeons, Charles
Trafford, Dr. Anthony



Sinclair, Sir George
Trew, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Soref, Harold
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mr. Jasper More.


Speed, Keith






NOES


Abse, Leo
Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)


Albu, Austen
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hunter, Adam


Allen, Scholefield
Dempsey, James
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Doig, Peter
Janner, Greville


Ashley, Jack
Dormand, J. D.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Ashton, Joe
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)


Atkinson, Norman
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Driberg, Tom
John, Brynmor


Barnes, Michael
Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnson, James (K' ston-on-Hull, W.)


Barnett, Joel
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, Walter (Derby, South)


Baxter, William
Edelman, Maurice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Beaney, Alan
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Barry (Flint, East)


Bidwell, Sydney
English, Michael
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Fred
Judd, Frank


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Faulds, Andrew
Kaufman, Gerald


Booth, Albert
Fernyhough, E.
Kelley, Richard


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Lady wood)
Kerr, Russell


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kinnock, Neil


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lambie, David


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamond, James


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Foot, Michael
Latham, Arthur


Brown, Bob (N'o'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ford, Ben
Lawson, George


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Forrester, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Freeson, Reginald
Leonard, Dick


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lestor, Miss Joan


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)


Campbell, Ian (Dunbartonshire, West)
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cant, R. B.
Golding, John
Lipton, Marcus


Carmichael, Neil
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Loughlin, Charles


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)




Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Gourlay, Harry
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, East)


Cocks, Michael
Grant, John D. (Islington, East)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Cohen, Stanley
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
MoBride, Neil


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MoCann, John


Concannon, J. D.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McCartney, Hugh


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacColl, James


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McElhone, Frank


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)
Hamling, William
McGuire, Michael


Crawshaw, Richard
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cronin, John
Hardy, Peter
Mackie, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Harper, Joseph
Maclennan, Robert


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakeffeld)
McManus, Frank


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hattersley, Roy
MacPherson, Malcolm


Dalyell, Tam
Heffer, Erio S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hilton, W. S.
Marquand, David


Davidson, Arthur
Horam, John
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mayhew, Christopher


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Huckfield, Leslie
Meacher, Michael


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Mikardo. Ian







Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rankin, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Swain, Thomas


Molloy, William
Rees, Meriyn (Leeds, S.)
Taverne, Dick


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Richard, Ivor
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Moyle, Roland
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Tomney, Frank


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Torney, Tom


Murray, Ronald King
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Tuck, Raphael


Ogden, Eric
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Urwin, T. W.


O'Halloran, Michael
Roper, John
Varley, Eric G.


O'Malley, Brian
Rose, Paul B.
Wainwright, Edwin


Oram, Bert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Orbach, Maurice
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Orme, Stanley
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wallace, George


Oswald, Thomas
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Watkins, David


Padley, Walter
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Weitzman, David


Palmer, Arthur
Sillars, James
Wellbeloved, James


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silverman, Julius
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Pardoe, John
Skinner, Dennis
Whitehead, Phillip


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Small, William
Whitlock, William


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Pavitt, Laurie
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Pendry, Tom
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Pentland, Norman
Steel, David
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Woof, Robert


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)



Prescott, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Strang, Gavin
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Price, William (Rugby)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Mr. Kenneth Marks.


Probert, Arthur

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. I wish—

Dr. Miller: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is impossible for the Chair to take two points of order simultaneously. Mr. Lawson.

Mr. Lawson: I wish to question the validity of the vote which has just been taken. That was why I rose earlier in case I should be cut out.
The Under-Secretary, winding up for the Government, sat down at one-and-a-half minutes to ten. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) was on his feet immediately calling Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker paid no attention whatsoever to my hon. Friend, but proceeded to take the vote. Despite the fact that when the hat was called for and the hat was on the head of my hon. Friend and it was still not ten o'clock, your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, persisted in going on with the vote. I ask whether, in those circumstances, since clearly my hon. Friend was on his feet before ten o'clock, that vote can be regarded as valid.

Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of what took place before ten o'clock—

An Hon. Member: We are telling you.

Mr. Speaker: —except what has been so graphically narrated by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). I understand from what he said that the Minister sat down and that my predecessor in the Chair did not see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) rising—[Interruption.] I ask hon. Members not to be too impatient. My predecessor in the Chair apparently did not see the hon. Gentleman, even with a hat on his head, according to the graphic description of the hon. Member for Motherwell. The Question was put, and the Question has been decided.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: One of the joys of the Chair is that so many hon. Members wish to give the occupant advice on points of order.

Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know where you got your information from—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I got my information from the clear and succinct account of the hon. Gentleman's colleague.

Mr. Hamilton: You are getting some additional information from me. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) was clearly seen


by your predecessor in the Chair. It was clearly a minute or two before ten o'clock. [Interruption.] The timekeeper will let us know. In those circum stances, is it not the case that an hon. Member is given the opportunity to speak at least until the Closure is moved by the Government Chief Whip? That being so, was it not highly improper for your predecessor in the Chair—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Hamilton: If we do not get satisfaction on this, there is only one course open to us, and that is to consider putting on the Order Paper a Motion of no confidence in the hon. Lady.

Mr. Speaker: I am talking very seriously now. I know the hon. Member's respect for the conventions of the House. He has, as a last resort, to move a Motion of censure on my predecessor in the Chair. I cannot judge what happened except from the accounts, dramatic, accurate, or otherwise, given by Members of the House. The hon. Lady, my predecessor in the Chair, put the Question. The Question was accepted by the House. What might have happened was that if the hon. Member persisted the Closure should have been moved and the vote would have been on the Closure.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are too impatient in wanting to advise the Chair. I long for advice, but I want it one by one, at a time.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you are satisfied that the Chair has sufficient power to deal with the deteriorating situation that is arising in this Parliament—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Member for Peterborough always has the power to advise Parliament on its conventions and its problems. We are not discussing the deterioration of Parliament from the days when the hon. Member knew that Parliament was so wonderful. We are discussing a specific issue, and the hon. Member must address himself to that.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If I could complete my submission, it would be that tonight's incident is part and parcel—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether it is part or parcel of something with which the hon. Member agrees or disagrees, he must address himself to the issue before us now.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I was raising a new point of order, and I raise it with some force and some feeling. I am asking Mr. Speaker whether he is satisfied that the Chair has sufficient power to deal with a deteriorating situation in this Parliament. I cite what happened tonight as an example of what I mean—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's philosophic observations on what has happened in Parliament do not concern the Chair at the moment. He must address himself to what happened tonight.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) covered himself and sat down on a point of order during the Division—which was correct. He was not prepared to accept the decision of the Chair, and he rose, still covered, and he paraded from one side of the House to the other until he placed himself alongside the Deputy Speaker, and gesticulated, and banged the Chair, beside the Deputy Speaker—[An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."]—and I venture to submit to you, Mr. Speaker—[An HON. MEMBER: "Apply for the Chiltern Hundreds."]—that if this incident is added to the other happenings of recent days then the authority of the Chair is being undermined and the standard of Parliament, I think, is being lowered, as was the case tonight—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is certain is that when an hon. Member is submitting a point of order and we have noise from either side of the House, Parliament, in which all of us believe, is being undermined.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: What I am saying is that procedures which have been laid down and followed for centuries were not followed—not only tonight but other nights. I am saying that there is clear evidence early in this Parliament that they are trying to disrupt the procedures of Parliament—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to accept from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), under the guise of a point of order, his


opinions on the present British Parliament—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member, if he wishes to speak to the point of order, must confine himself to that point of order on which I am asked to rule.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is it in order for a Member of this House to remain covered and to parade from one end of the Chamber to the other and gesticulate in front of the Deputy Speaker in the Chair in order to try to influence the decision the Chair will take?

Mr. Speaker: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for trying to help, but he knows that if objection is taken to something which has happened at the moment of Division, it is in order for an hon. Member, as it was in order for the late Sir Winston Churchill, whom we all loved, to put a hat on his head. Whether he paraded or not is something I know nothing about.

Dr. Miller: Further to that point of order. I am not now concerned with the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell was incensed at the fact that I rose to my feet with what celerity I could command having regard to my osteo-arthritic or rheumatic bones, but we were discussing a very important subject, and I rose to my feet at least two minutes before ten o'clock. We were discussing the very important subject of education in Scotland, and it ill behoves people who come in here at the last minute to get up—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Member will not intermingle with his point of order his views on education in Scotland as opposed to education in England.

Dr. Miller: I am not trying to do that. I was here, and I was trying to get into the debate, and that is why I rose shortly before the hon. Member sat down, because I wanted to raise several points which he had brought to my attention during his speech. At least two minutes to ten, I got to my feet. I want to know whether it is in order that the vote was taken at this time; whether it is in

order that this vote should stand. I was on my feet wanting to enter the debate at least two minutes before ten o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: I am guided only by the representations I have had in the last few minutes about what happened at the Division. I understand that my predecessor in the Chair put the Question at some time before ten o'clock. This was a matter in the discretion of the Chair. If there had been objection taken, it was for somebody to move the Closure. The Closure could have been moved and would have been voted upon. I think the House wanted to come to a decision—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. When the Chair is making an important decision, it does not help the Chair if one side or the other cheers the Chair. I think that my predecessor in the Chair was justified in assuming that the House wanted to come to a decision. If someone had moved the Closure, I imagine, from what I have known of the debate during the many hours in which I have heard the views of both sides, that the Closure would have been accepted, so that the House could come to a decision. The decision stands.

Mr. Lawson: I regret taking this matter as far as this, and I respect your decision, Mr. Speaker. I would agree that, had the Closure been moved, we would have gone straight to the vote. But I want to put it to you again that my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove was on his feet, I said a minute and a half, certainly substantially, before ten o'clock. My point is that, before ten o'clock—at one minute to ten as I looked at it—my hon. Friend was sitting on that bench with a hat on his head calling points of order.
I agree that I was rather disturbed. I know the procedure when a point of order is raised, and if the Member is seated and covered while a Division is in progress. I was disturbed that no attention was paid to the point of order. It was on that basis that I myself—perhaps it was a little presumptuous of me—got the hat from my hon. Friend and sat on the bench and called a point of order—and no attention was paid to me either.
I put it to you, Sir, that an hon. Member is entitled to feel a wee bit indignant if, under proper circumstances, no attention


is paid to a proper point of order and the vote is persisted with. It was on that basis that I moved down, very sedately and calmly, very much in order, and asked Mr. Deputy Speaker if she was paying no attention to a point of order. The hat was on my head then. Apart from this, I did nothing.
We all have memories of what has happened here in the past, when only 30 seconds and not two minutes has been involved. I put it to you, Sir, that if there could be no doubt—I am saying that there could be none—that an hon. Member had the hat on his head before ten o'clock and no Closure was moved, and that hon. Member was challenging the vote, that vote should properly be declared invalid.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Motherwell and the whole House know that it puts Mr. Speaker in an impossible position if, in an ex parte discussion of what took place in the Chair, he is asked to repudiate one of his two trusted colleagues who occupies the Chair in his unavoidable absence. I begin by that.

Mr. Lawson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, who knows more about Parliament than I do, knows that he does not talk when the Speaker is on his feet.
I understand that the Chair, in my absence, put the Question. I have no knowledge of what happened in the minute, two minutes, before putting the Question except what has been described to me by the House. I am prepared to let the Question stand, or to put it again.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Of course, I understand your feelings, Mr. Speaker. I understand the feelings of the House very well. Perhaps no one has been more involved in the last six years than I have been in various controversies leading up to votes at ten o'clock. Perhaps I can reasonably say that no one has tried more fairly than I have, from the position which the right hon. Gentleman now occupies, to ensure that one does one's best in the interests of the House towards ten o'clock, with all the difficulties that involve the House at that time. I fully understand the feelings of hon. Members

opposite, and I believe it right that the House should consider very carefully how the debates come to an end at ten o'clock.
But I feel, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that this will be taken by the House as a whole, that there are difficulties. We are all placed in difficulties. The Chair is in a difficult position on these occasions. But the Chair has put the Question. I fully appreciate what the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and other hon. Members have said. I fully appreciate his feelings and those of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller). I understand what they say.
But surely there is a duty on Parliament and on all of us on both sides of the House. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite know very well the problems that we are having on this occasion. But surely it is reasonable to say that once the Question has been put from the Chair, the decision of the Chair can be challenged in a proper way on a future occasion. But once the Question has been put from the Chair and has been voted on, surely it is right, in the interests of Parliament, that it should be accepted.
I fully appreciate the difficulties, and I fully understand how hon. Members feel, but it is perfectly clear that if they are not satisfied they have their remedy. But I honestly think that in the interests of Parliament, and in my own humble experience—which, goodness knows, is very much shorter than that of many hon. Members—once the Question has been put from the Chair it should be reasonably accepted. Hon. Members who do not like how it happened—we all have our troubles from time to time—have their remedies. I know they do not like to use them—no one does. But I believe in the interests of the House as a whole, that once the Question has been put it should be accepted that the Question was put, otherwise the whole procedures of the House will become very difficult. I am in the hands of the House—I am only anxious to help hon. Members in all parts—but I feel that what I suggest is a reasonable proposition in all the circumstances.

Mr. Fred Peart: I think that my hon. Friends have made their point. I understand their feelings, and I am glad that the Leader of the House


also does. Naturally, I was sorry that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nichols) tried to drag in other matters about people wishing to frustrate Parliament. I believe that there is no hon. Member on either side who wishes that. All I say is that I would accept the sound advice of the Leader of the Opposition — [Laughter.] — well, who knows, the Lord President of the Council

may one day be in that position. The Leader of the House has put the position clearly and fairly and I hope that my hon. Friends will accept what he has said.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to both sides of the House. The Chair is in a difficult position when he receives accounts of what has happened in the House.

Orders of the Day — LEGAL AID (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS)

10.35 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1970, dated 16th July, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd July, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: It has been suggested that with this Motion we should discuss the next one:
That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations, 1970, dated 20th July, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd July, be approved.
Is there any objection?

Sir Elwyn Jones: That will be convenient to the Opposition, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Gentlemen who wish to leave the House do so quickly and quietly? We have a lot of work ahead.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful for the opportunity of dealing with both sets of Regulations together. Even so, I shall not venture to deal with the Scottish aspects of the matter, as I am hopeful that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office, will catch your eye and be able to deal with the strictly Scottish aspects. Most of the Scottish, English and Welsh matters are being dealt with in precisely the same way under the two sets of Regulations.
The Regulations are made under Section 1 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1960, which for the first time since 1949 raised the limits for free and contributory legal aid and also gave power for that to be done again by regulation. These Regulations are therefore made under that power. They are the first to be so made. They increase for the second time since 1949 the financial limits within which people are eligible for legal aid with or without contributions.
There are three things with which the House will be familiar but which perhaps should be noted to begin with. First, the Regulations increase only the income limits for eligibility. They do not affect

the capital disregards. Second, the Regulations must be read and understood together with the Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) Regulations, 1970, which come into force on the same day—16th November, 1970—as these Regulations, unless negatived. Third, these Regulations take the place of corresponding Regulations laid by the previous Government in May of this year.
Before dealing with the details, I want to remind the House that the limits covered by these Regulations relate to what is known as the disposable income of the applicant for legal aid—that is, his or her income after deducting certain items in respect of maintenance of dependants, repayment of loans, tax, rates and other matters. So the gross incomes with which we are concerned are substantially higher than those dealt with in the Regulations.
The basic changes made in the English Regulations are these. Regulation 3 raises the ceiling of eligibility for free legal aid from £250 to £300 disposable income. Regulation 2 raises the ceiling for legal aid with contributions being made by the applicant from £700 to £950, again disposable income. These new figures of £300 and £950 must be considered alongside the Assessment of Resources Regulations, which will have the effect of increasing the figures that I have mentioned by an average of £50 in each case. The last Government's Regulations as they were laid in May of this year were different in the sense that they were not accompanied by any such change in the Assessment of Resources Regulations and they would have raised the limits to £350 and £1,000. That is £50 more, and that gap is bridged by the changes which are being made in the Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) Regulations because those Regulations deal with the amounts which have to be disregarded by the Supplementary Benefits Commission in assessing the resources of an applicant for legal aid.
The Regulations which come into force on that front, on the same day as these, effect a change in the method of assessment and, in doing so, they implement a recommendation of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee in its last Report published on 28th May of this


year. These Regulations, therefore, implement the recommendations of that Committee's Report of ten days after the previous Government laid their last Regulations.
One must bear in mind that under the former system, the Supplementary Benefits Commission was entitled to disregard in respect of an applicant's income
such amount as is just and equitable in respect of any matter for which the person concerned must or reasonably may provide.
That meant that an applicant who had continuing obligations, such as hire purchase or insurance commitments, was entitled to get those expenses disregarded and the average figure disregarded under the old Regulations was £54. The great majority of cases came at or near that average figure.
What is now proposed by the Legal Aid Advisory Committee is that that system should be changed because of the disadvantage in it that every applicant who had such additional expenditure had to prove that he was incurring such expenditure, which meant delay and inconvenience for him and additional administrative costs. The Advisory Committee therefore recommended that in the next revision of these scales across the board it would be convenient for the Supplementary Benefits Commission to disregard in respect of all applicants a given figure, and the Regulations on the assessment of resources, which take effect with the Regulations before the House, will have the effect of enabling the Commission hereafter to disregard, in respect of everybody, £104 of their income in any event.
This means that if somebody has the average additional expenditure of £54, he will have that disregarded, and £54 represents about the average. In the great majority of cases, with the additional £50 over the average of £54, these Regulations taken together have exactly the same effect as those laid by the previous Government, except that they do so with less inconvenience for the applicants concerned.
It is right that I should point out that if people have no additional commitments, then they are £54 better off on the assessment divided by three. How-

ever,if they have the full £104 commitments, they are £54 worse off divided by three. This means that around the average, which is the predominant matter, there could be a fluctuation as a result of this simplified procedure to the extent of the perhaps inappropriately uncomfortable figure of 6s. 8d. a week either way. There is, therefore, room for a slight variation, but the improvement which will result will convenience the great majority of applicants.
The effect of the proposals will mean, first, a change on transition so that 50,000 people who are now in receipt of legal aid will have their contributions reduced; about 16,000 more people will get free legal aid; about 40,000 more will pay lower contributions; and about 7,000 additional people will qualify for help who would not otherwise have got it.
The cost of the matter will vary as between the short-term and long-term. In the short-term the additional cost of the lag between the contributions of applicants for legal aid and the outgoings to members of the legal profession will be £160,000 a year. In the long term, as a result of a net loss of contributions of £643,000 from people now exempt, and as a result of additional costs of £483,000 from people who come into the scheme who did not previously do so, the total long-term additional cost will be £1,126,000.
If the House approves the Regulations, which have similar effect both south and north of the Border, we shall be restoring the essential framework of the legal aid scheme and ensuring that access to it will once again be available for the proportion of the population for whom it was intended to be available by the 1949 Act. On that basis I commend the Regulations to the House.

10.45 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: May I begin by congratulating the Solicitor-General on, I think, his first appearance on the Government Front Bench and wishing him every personal success? He will probably get a fairly easy passage tonight, but as I understand that he is one of the principal architects of the Government's Industrial Relations Bill I cannot promise him an equally easy passage hereafter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not widen the debate.

Sir Elwyn Jones: That was merely by way of a brief prelude, Mr. Speaker, to what was intended to be the merely congratulatory section of my submissions to the House.
We on this side of the House welcome the Regulations, as far as they go. It is rather like the pea which the Devil is said to have set before St. Anthony for his supper, about which St. Anthony said that it was good as far as it went. The fact is that the Regulations merely seek to cope with the decline in the purchasing power of the pound since, I think, 1960.
The figure of £950 appears in the Regulations, whereas when I made an announcement to the House in May the intention was to introduce Regulations raising the figure to £1,000. But the hon. and learned Gentleman has explained the matter to us in details which I confess I shall need to read in HANSARD fully to comprehend, and I accept his assurance that at the end of the day it amounts to the same thing, and that we are now at the level of £1,000 and £300 respectively.
But I hope that I shall be in order in saying that the matter should be considered against the background from which it emerges. If I recollect correctly my reading of the financial newspapers and others, then since May, when the figure of £1,000 was suggested, there has been an increasing volume of inflation, and it may well be that the figure of £950 now proposed already lags behind the realistic figure which would be required to cover the inflation since 1960. Therefore, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the position again in the very near future in the light of the inflationary tide which it seems the present Government are quite incapable of coping with. However, I must not widen the scope of the debate excessively.
The background to the Regulations is that in May of this year I announced on behalf of the then Government a number of legal aid measures, and in particular the proposal about the £25 advisory scheme. That has been commended and strongly recommended to the Lord Chancellor and the Government by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Com-

mittee. The last recommendation was in May this year, when it was said:
Until something is done to improve the existing Schemes a large proportion of the public will continue to be deprived of a solicitor's services and legal questions will only be resolved when litigation follows.
Then there followed this important passage:
Assistance will become even more necessary when the Divorce Reform Act 1969 comes into force on 1st January, 1971. Much more will then be needed by way of advice and negotiation before a petition is filed and the respondent becomes eligible for legal aid. We do again ask that these matters should receive urgent attention".
Although the failure to do what was recommended may be a short-term gain in terms of expenditure, I am convinced, as I think was the Advisory Committee, that in the long run legal advice at an early stage will reduce the amount of legal aid litigation. Therefore, the Government's refusal to introduce the £25 legal advisory scheme is, from the point of view of public expenditure, self-defeating.
I could not help noticing that the Lord Chancellor went as near as possible to announcing a state of rebellion with his Cabinet when he said in another place:
I think I can say, without either disloyalty to my colleagues or impertinence to the noble and learned Lord, that, of all the schemes which I have seen to fill an admitted need, it is the one which most attracts me personally".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 9th July, 1970; Vol. 311, c. 401.]
It is obvious that the Lord Chancellor has been defeated in the Cabinet on this issue. I hope that the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General will put a little fire into the belly of the Lord Chancellor, if that is not too impertinent a suggestion to make about him.
While welcoming this modest Measure as far as it goes, we on this side deplore the Government's failure to do that which is only effective and practical in the circumstances which would greatly help a large number of people who are denied legal advice. I urge the Solicitor-General to apply his mind to the urgent importance of dealing with that which has been so strongly recommended from so authoritative a source—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that he cannot amend the Regulations. They deal only with extending certain financial limits.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I think that I made my point while your attention perhaps was not entirely concentrated on what I was saying. Having made the point, I am content to leave it there.

Mr. Speaker: If there were an English word, I would say touché.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: When the question of legal aid was last debated in the House on 14th May, the hon. and learned Member for Stockport said:
… it is our aim to extend legal aid. I feel that we are very mean about the administration of justice. We tend to think that we must be careful about every penny spent in the administration of justice and legal aid. I think the other way. Of course, we should practise economy. Of course, we should make sure that money is well spent, but this is one field in which we should be very careful not to be mean. I am sure that there is scope for extending the benefits of this system."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c, 1653.]
I entirely agree with those words. But the words uttered by the Attorney-General only the other day in the House—

Mr. Ian Percival: Were not the words which the hon. Gentleman has just quoted said by the hon. and learned Member for Southport—not Stockport?

Mr. Davis: That must be so. HANSARD has got it wrong.
We have had the washing overboard of the £25 scheme, and now the Government complacently rest their case on the introduction of this proposal.
It is as well to refer to the preamble to the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949:
An Act to make legal aid and advice in England and Wales … more readily available for persons of small or moderate means, to enable the cost of legal aid or advice for such persons to be defrayed wholly or partly out of moneys provided by Parliament.…
Advice has been virtually forgotten, for the scheme as at present operated is not successful. But we are not discussing the advice scheme or its inadequacy tonight. We are not discussing the inadequacy of the extent of the whole legal aid system, and the deprivation of people who wish to pursue a remedy before tribunals, where so many of the rights of citizens are nowadays decided.

We are tonight discussing the inadequacy of the system for financial eligibility.
The proposal is that the limit should now be £950. How does this compare with the original figure of £420 in 1949, or the £700 in 1960? If there be any improvement at all, it is only marginal, and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) said, one has to take into account in these matters the erosion of money values caused by inflation.
In 1967, the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee concluded:
There is a large category of people who, if their means were assessed, would be adjudged incapable of finding money for their own litigation but who are refused legal aid because their means bring them outside the limits of the scheme".
If that was true in 1967, it is even more true today, and the improvements suggested here will make only a marginal difference. There is still a law for the rich and a law for the poor in this country. There are too many people who will still be deprived of opportunity of pursuing their legal remedies or obtaining redress when they are wronged.
It is an assessment of joint disposable income, not an individual assessment, which the Law Society has to take into account. As a practising solicitor, one has many cases, for example, accident cases, which reveal the defects of the system. A worker who is foolish enough not to join a trade union, or who is dissuaded from joining a trade union, suffers a rather serious accident at work or, perhaps, a road accident. He finds that his and his wife's joint disposable income is such that he is unable to obtain legal aid, and for that reason he is unable to pursue his remedy against, in effect, an insurance company. He cannot on his own challenge the might of a substantial insurance company in the courts if he is deprived of legal aid. Insurance companies are not unmindful of this factor in negotiations.
The real question is whether legal aid is provided for sufficient people in sufficient courts, and whether these Regulations will substantially help in resolving that question. At present—it will still happen under the Regulations—free legal aid is available only to the very poor, and there is unquestionably a denial of legal aid to many people of quite


moderate means in cases in which, on merit and leaving aside the question of financial hardship, they should be entitled to legal aid. Moreover, the contributions which are made in so many cases today involve real financial hardship for a large number of people.
I sincerely hope that the Government will say tonight that this will not be their last word, that they will not complacently say that this represents the totality of their thinking on legal aid.
I hope that the Solicitor-General can assure the House that the income limits, which have not been reviewed for something like 10 years, will not again be subject to a delay in review of that kind. I hope that he might be able to say that we could consider the situation annually or, at least, biennially. This represents not only an important feature in our social services but, more important perhaps, an important feature in safeguarding the individual liberty of so many of our citizens. I feel that the proposals that are before the House tonight are niggardly, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to give us a satisfactory assurance on the lines I have suggested.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I welcome the Regulations because they undoubtedly do much to extend the scope of legal aid. At the same time, one must recognise that the umbrella which is provided by the Regulations leaves outside its cover a vast number of people who might at sometime be exposed to the need to come before the courts and to pay for the expense of appearing before the courts.
It used to be a cry—an old-fashioned cry, no longer applicable today—that there was one law for the rich and another law for the poor. But although the Regulations, happily, go to some extent towards alleviating the need that existed, and exists, for extending legal aid, I submit that they illustrate the danger of a position, to which we might be coming, of having to say that there is one law for the rich and the poor and another law for those who are neither.
The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee, in its Report published in 1969, observed that the most effective way of reducing legal aid costs was to simplify

legal procedures or to avoid the need to litigate. I would add to that by saying that there should be a combination of both methods and that we ought to focus upon that solution. When however, one looks at the argument that it is wise to avoid litigation, an argument with which, I suppose, no one would disagree, in the light of the Regulations one must be driven to the conclusion that the most certain way of avoiding litigation is to ensure that people can be advised wisely to keep out of court.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing whether there should be legal aid and advice. That is provided under the parent Act. We are discussing certain income and financial considerations which are amended in the Regulations.

Mr. Gardner: I will not pursue that point, Mr. Speaker, and I will turn to another which is equally important and, I hope, within the limits of the Regulations. We are considering Regulations which allow financial assistance to individuals—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Regulations increase certain financial limits. Whether there should be aid to litigants is a matter under the parent Act. The hon. and learned Member must come to the Regulations.

Mr. Gardner: Perhaps I may put it this way, Mr. Speaker. If I cannot, I must turn to another point. Without being too ingenious and, I hope, with some rectitude, may I put the matter this way? The increase which is allowed under these Regulations not only fails to go to what ultimately and ideally must be the limits necessary to cover people who need protection, but it fails to bring within its ambit amenity and preservation societies which are finding themselves crushed under the financial burden of having to appear before public inquiries and in this Parliament to oppose Private Bills.
I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to consider whether it would be possible at some stage—I do not suggest that the moment is now—to bring within the ambit of Government assistance—and legal aid is Government assistance for the litigant—a society which, with the public good in mind, finds itself in the position of having to oppose


proposals by local and central authorities both at public inquiries and in this Parliament.
Societies like the Council for the Protection of Rural England and others of that kind are bodies deserving of some consideration by the Government, because if they do not get legal aid, they may find themselves opposed to bodies which, out of funds which their members may be supplying by way of taxes, may have instructed counsel, the societies themselves being without funds to pay the fees for counsel who might act on their behalf as advocates. It would be for the national good, and this is something for the Government to consider for the future as being a benefit to the country at large, to extend legal aid to societies and groups of people—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has been out of order for a long time.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I shall not seek to follow the erudition of the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) in taking the House as far out of order as he and my right hon. and learned Friend did. Like my colleagues, I want to express my welcome for the Regulations. I have some apprehensions about whether the average disregards which the Solicitor-General has outlined to the House will prove very satisfactory. I think that they are liable to be like the uniforms produced by the army contractor who produced uniforms for the average-sized soldier.
However, I am concerned that the changes are not to affect the capital disregards. Most of my hon. Friends who are practising for working-class clients would agree with me that the problems presented to a family with a few hundred pounds of savings and involved in litigation which has to be contested and facing the prospect, particularly when approaching retiring age, of using up those savings in the litigation, are very acute. Bearing in mind the high proportion of success in legally aided litigation, the cost to the Legal Aid Fund of increasing the capital disregards would be very small indeed.
I am sorry that I should probably not be in order if I expressed a desire to see the means assessments in criminal legally aided cases standardised. There is a wide variation, with magistrates assessing means in criminal legally aided cases by different criteria—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in ruling himself out of order.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I will content myself with saying that I welcome the Regulations, but I wish they went much further.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Any increase in the limits for legal aid is welcome, so I welcome the Regulations. While this extension is designed to help people with low incomes, people in the £30 a week area will still not be eligible for legal aid, and they are one of the prime butts of the Government's economic policy. Life will be made even harder for those people, particularly as in England the loser is in normal circumstances made liable for the costs of the winner, and a person undertaking legal action knows that he will be stung at both ends if he does not succeed. There should, therefore, be a higher limit for people earning between £25 and £35 a week.
The Government talk about making good the reduction in the value of money but they are not using the same yardstick as they use in dealing with other matters. For example, in 1949 the limit of county court jurisdiction was £200; it is now £750. We were told that it was raised to £750 because of the fall in the value of money and the limit must be brought into line. If £750 now is worth as much as £200 was then, that represents a 350 per cent. increase since 1949. A different situation arises with legal aid. In 1949 the limit for legal aid was £420 disposable income; it is now £950, which we are told is really £1,000. That is an increase of about 250 per cent., which is about 125 per cent. less than the change in the county court jurisdiction for allegedly the same reason—to make good the fall in the value of money.
I ask the Government to come to the House again shortly to increase the limits


for legal aid so that not only those on a low income will benefit but those who are rapidly becoming the new poor at the £25–£35 level.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I rise only because the debate is in danger of becoming niggly. The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) was all good clean fun, and he was good enough to say that he fully supported the Regulations.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) was niggly. He said that he hoped there would not be similar delays in the future. If there has been delay, whose delay has it been? One cannot fault the Government for any delay; the Regulations have been laid speedily. He quoted what I said—I think "Stockport" was a misprint for "Southport"—and I seem to remember saying it. What I said from the Opposition benches as recently as May is borne out by what is happening now. I hope that it was our intention not to be mean about it. We realise that it is money well spent. It seems that the Order is proof positive that what I said then anticipated accurately what a Conservative Government would do if given the chance.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that he is now completely satisfied that this is what he meant by an extension of legal aid? Surely he had something better in mind?

Mr. Percival: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. I think that this is a good step in the right direction, and one taken very early.
The hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) asked what this has to do with people who practise in the sphere of working-class clients? I I have been a practising lawyer for 25 years and I do not know of any distinction between working-class clients and others. They are just clients. We hope that working-class clients will be given every assistance to pursue their cases. In my experience, they always have been, legal aid or no legal aid. But I am glad that the Government, which I am proud to support, are introducing a Measure which will ensure that they get the assistance which they have always had through legal aid.
I am sure that the mathematics of the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) were right. But so what? We are raising the limit from £700 to £950. I understand that if a man has a disposable income of £700 he cannot have legal aid. The Regulations propose raising the limit from £700 to £950, so why cannot this House simply accept that as very good indeed without all these niggles? I hope that the House will proceed quickly to pass the Regulations as making a significant contribution to the purpose for which we have legal aid without all this niggling about it.

Mr. Ernle Money: Before my hon. and learned Friend sits down. Does he accept that the majority of the clients for whom all who practise in the profession appear on legal aid are working-class clients?

Mr. Percival: I repeat, I do not draw a distinction. I am not sure what a working-class client is. I think that some people who would not come within the generally accepted definition of "working class" are the hardest working. Certainly in all the years that I have been practising, this distinction has not been drawn. The profession does not talk about working-class and other clients. We hope that the necessary facilities will be made available to all clients, whether working class or not.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Certainly we do not draw a distinction, but the situation is still as it has been for many years—that the courts are open to all in the same way as the Ritz Hotel. In many cases there are differences between the assistance which is available to the client who is in a position to pay cash, the client who has to find a lawyer who is prepared to accept him whether he can or cannot get legal aid, and the client who needs a solicitor who may be willing to fight his battle where legal aid is not available. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to note that every hon. Member who has spoken on this side has welcomed the Regulations. It is not a matter of niggling. We welcome the Regulations, but we would like them to go further.

Mr. Percival: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remark at the end of his intervention. I repeat, in my experience at


the Bar I have never known this distinction. I think that the difficult area is that of those who are neither rich nor poor, those who are in neither the upper Mayfair bracket, nor in the working-class one. That is the difficult—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that the legal profession will not invoke the Chair's disfavour by trying to define its clients, because that is not really the subject of the Regulations.

Mr. Percival: I was saying that I welcome the Regulations because it seems that that is the area in which they lend assistance. This is the area where one is not talking about either the very rich or the very poor. I welcome the Regulations because I think that they will provide real help in that area where assistance is needed.

11.21 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: Although I cannot attempt to follow the characteristically charming point made by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) when he kindly offered me his congratulations and personal good wishes but linked that with an obscure story about the diatetic and religious habits of St. Anthony, I express my appreciation none the less.
The points made in the debate have been of two kinds. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) steered himself narrowly within the rules of order and made a valuable point in suggesting that there are bands of citizens who, confronted with the somewhat protracted procedures of some of our planning inquiries could, as the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) knows, look for help, but my hon. and learned Friend appreciates that that raises a problem of a different kind, so different that he almost trespassed outside the rules of order in raising it, but it is, nevertheless, important.
The point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) really went to the heart of the debate, because he took up a point made, I think, by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) to the effect that the legal aid scheme,

even as extended in this way, does not really do enough to help those in the middle. I think that it is possible to underestimate the extent of the improvement being made by this uplifting of the disposable income. When one takes account of the matters that have to be disregarded the effect, if I may give the example of a married man with two children, is to bring him within the limits of the scheme now with a gross income of £39 3s. a week, that is to say a gross income of rather more than £2,000 a year, which is a substantial advance on the gross income before and it does, as my hon. and learned Friend said, take us quite a long way towards helping those people in the middle whom hon. Members have in mind.
The hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) expressed anxiety about the principle adopted in disregarding capital. The principle is that embodied in the Report of the Rushcliffe Committee and endorsed by the Legal Aid Advisory Committee, that cash capital resources should be disregarded only to a limited extent in this connection as opposed to what happens with regard to the Supplementary Benefits Commission, but the committee made a separate point that a house should be effectively disregarded because to take that into account would work to the hardship of many of the people the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The Assessment of Resources Regulations, which come into force at the same time as this Order, increase the value of the house that has to be disregarded from £3,000 to £5,000.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I accept that, and we are aware that the house is disregarded, but frequently the situation arises that a family has money put by ready to buy a house for their retirement. If that family is involved in litigation during the period when they are nearing retirement, that money is not disregarded, although if they had bought the house by that time the house would be disregarded. That situation can cause hardship.

The Solicitor-General: I know that there is force in that argument, but the Regulations to which I have referred come into effect at the same time as these Regulations and extend the size of the disregard for the house. The other point raised by the hon. Member challenges a principle which has so far


remained substantially unchallenged from Rushcliffe to the last Report of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee, but it is, clearly, a matter he was entitled to raise and to draw to the attention of those who have to consider this.
The point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) about the comparison between the county court jurisdiction and the variation in limits so far as legal aid is concerned fails to take into account, if my memory serves me aright, that the county court jurisdiction was fixed at £200 in 1949. My legal memory does not extend back to the right point, but I am assured that the limit was fixed in 1938. So it is not very unfair to compare £200 with £750 in that time span and £420 and £1,000.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Of course that point is perfectly fair, although it was still £200 in 1949, but is it right that the limit is going up any moment to £1,000?

The Solicitor-General: That raises a matter right outside the scope of these Regulations, and I should be out of order in answering the question; so I will not do so.
To come now to the slightly more tendentious part of the debate which, to some extent, has been on an even keel, the part which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport characterised as being unduly niggling. He was attaching that phrase to the word used by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central, suggesting that the changes being made were niggling. It is worth remembering that in fact the effect of the changes is precisely the same as that embodied in Regulations introduced by the previous Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Ham, South, drew attention to the remarks made by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in another place, which, of course, indicated my noble Friend's acceptance of the £25 scheme as best to meet identified need, but to suggest that I, of all people, should begin putting fire into the belly of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, of all people, is really to take us into the heights of absurdity. There is no one less needing that kind of ingredient. It is equally absurd to suggest that he has lost any kind of battle in Cabinet.
The task which must regulate our approach to achieving any of these desirable aims is the task of stemming the fires—if I may mix my metaphor—which feed the inflationary tide which these Measures are meant to check, to remedy, to abate. It is worth noticing—I am sure the House will notice—that the period of 10 years since the last increase in 1960 may be divided into two halves, and the rise in the cost of living between 1960 and October, 1966, was 15·4 per cent., from October, 1966, to June, 1970, it was 29·7 per cent. So that it is that galloping tide of inflation which these increases being introduced by the present Government are designed to abate, so as to protect the people who require protection, by extension of the scheme.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point which appears to have been made by the Advisory Committee, that the introduction of legal advice would diminish the volume of actual litigation and, therefore, would constitute a reduction in public expenditure, certainly in the long run?

The Solicitor-General: The point made by the Advisory Committee is, of course, well in my mind, and indeed it was, no doubt, in the mind of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, but as has been made clear, any question of extension of that kind, however desirable, has got to be looked at, as it was by the last Government, in the context of the economic circumstances of the nation as a whole.
In this context I would invite the House to give its support to these Regulations, not looking a worth-while gift horse in the mouth.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1970, dated 16th July 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd July, be approved.

LEGAL AID (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS)

Resolved,
That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1970, dated 20th July 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd July, be approved.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Orders of the Day — SENNI VALLEY (RESERVOIR)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I am grateful for this opportunity of bringing this subject before the House. I am also grateful to the Minister for his presence at this late hour, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) for attending. I hope that the Minister has been authorised by the Secretary of State to make up his mind as a result of this debate and not to prejudge the issue.
As this is the first time that I have addressed the House, I feel privileged in being allowed to raise the kind of problem for which my predecessor became well-known—namely, protection of the rights of his constituents. Hon. Members do not need me to remind them of what Tudor Watkins did here. He left a reputation for conscientiousness, diligence and courage which makes me feel proud to follow him. He fought many a battle in the interests of Brecon and Radnor and of Wales, and it is gratifying to see the affection and respect with which he is remembered here. Twenty-five years as Secretary of the Welsh Parliamentary Labour Party is no mean feat, and for an ex-miner to become the Chairman of the first Select Committee on Agriculture is sufficient indication of his eagerness to study and tackle a new field concerned with his constituency. The respect he has in Brecon and Radnor is even higher: Tudor is a household name there.
In case anyone should think that Brecon and Radnor are two towns, I must make it clear that this constituency covers two whole counties. It is regarded as the biggest in the land, covering an area of 1,200 square miles—or should I say nowadays 3,000 square kilometres? Any similarity in build between Tudor Watkins and myself is not a coincidence. The exercise involved in covering such a territory keeps one's weight down: I can recommend it to anyone with weight problems.
We are grateful to Mr. Michelmore for the free plug he gave us on television when announcing our result in the General

Election, when he described it as one of the most beautiful areas in the country and recommended that everyone should visit it at one time or another. That is probably why such a large part of it is included in the Brecon Beacons National Park. Hon. Members will appreciate that the people are very wise, having returned a Member to this side of the House for 25 years, and having now done so again.
Unfortunately, Brecon and Radnor have very serious problems. The coal mining industry has disappeared completely from the south end of the constituency. Public transport is non-existent in a major portion of the area, including the whole of Radnorshire. Employment opportunities are very poor, leading to migration of young people from the rural areas.
But another problem is exercising us at the moment, and that is the purpose of this debate—namely, the loss of good agricultural land for water storage and the consequent disappearance of live, valuable communities which this entails.
We are discussing the proposal of the Usk River Authority to build a reservoir at Senni. I know that the authority will say that it wishes only to investigate and take borings to see whether the land is suitable to build a reservoir. Is it conceivable that it will spend thousands of pounds on borings and then not proceed with a reservoir if the site is suitable? As one farmer put it, "We are for ever doing things like that: we keep digging holes for gateposts without any intention of putting up gateposts."
No, the people of the Senni Valley are resisting the boring because they know that this is the prelude to a reservoir. We have had resistance in Wales for many years over the construction of reservoirs for the benefit of our friends in English towns, but this time the problem is clarified. This time the water is for consumption in another part of Wales, thus focusing attention on the real problem—matching the needs of urban areas with the interests of rural areas.
Resistance in Senni is intense and would appear to the outsider to be fanatical. It would also be difficult for the outsider to comprehend its nature. These good people are a most peace-loving group but now they are defending


their homes, their livelihoods and their way of life.
A town dweller might say that one piece of land or one part of the countryside is much like another. On the contrary, the families of these good people have lived there for generations, having spent their lives there building up a warm, close and cultured community. They are defending something which is above mere economics.
We recognise the continuous, growing demand for more water, but we have reached the stage of asking what happens when there are no more valleys to flood. Thus, we feel that the time has come to look urgently for a solution to this problem.
We have a patchwork of water boards and river authorities in Wales, just as we have in other parts of the country. To try to understand the structures and the responsibilities of these bodies is quite a task, and I will not go into detail tonight. We are anxious that a Water Development Authority for Wales should be set up, as recommended by the Welsh Council. We are aware of the fact that this is being considered by the Central Advisory Water Committee.
We are conscious of this need because we have a line of demarcation involved in this area. The Minister will be well aware of the fact that a reservoir, the Brianne, is in process of construction a comparatively short distance away. Incorporated in the design of this reservoir is the proviso that its level can be raised 35 ft. to provide greater storage. How much simpler it would be to raise the level now rather than later.
But this reservoir is being built to cater for the needs of the West Glamorgan Water Board. It would be possible to transfer excess water from this reservoir to the Usk, but, of course, the Usk River Authority would be responsible for the extra costs. The river authority says that no official request has been made to it to negotiate on this scheme. That is the authority's case. I am asking the Secretary of State to make such a request. In the absence of a Water Development Authority for Wales, he is the person responsible to ensure that that is done. In fact, the Welsh Council, in its "Report on Water in Wales", published in June this year, said:

We acknowledge control over the development of water resources in Wales is now the responsibility of a Welsh Minister. No one can now build a reservoir anywhere in Wales without the approval of the Secretary of State for Wales.
If the Secretary of State is not responsible for water resources, who else can make an official request to this river authority to get on with negotiations?
When the previous Secretary of State gave permission for borings to take place, he also made it a condition that alternative sources should be examined. Would the present Secretary of State ensure that the extension of the Brianne Dam is properly considered? By "properly considered", I mean that he should be involved in the negotiations, not stand idly by while the negotiators fail to agree on a price. If the cost is a little higher than building a new reservoir at Senni, that must be weighed against the cost to the community of unnecessary flooding of valleys.
I am anxious that the Minister should become involved because we have a breakdown in other negotiations on our hands at the moment. Negotiations have been pursued for the transfer of water from the Cray and Usk reservoirs—incidentally, these are in the catchment area of the Usk River Authority but are owned by the West Glamorgan Board—but, as one newspaper put it,
Senni are the victims of a sordid cash squabble".
The board and the river authority could not agree a price. Would the Secretary of State please become involved here, too?
There are other areas in the Upper Towy Valley, I am given to understand, which are largely uninhabited and could be investigated, but the Usk River Authority cannot go into them as they are outside its area. That is one reason why we look forward to a Water Development Authority for Wales which would eliminate these demarcation disputes—something which I understood was very dear to the heart of the Minister's party. Serious consideration should also be given to increasing the capacity of the Talybont Reservoir.
I have made these suggestions because they would ensure adequate supplies for many years to come and avoid flooding


the Senni Valley unnecessarily. We cannot be sure at this stage what part underground storage and desalination will play in the near future. I recognise that underground storage will supply only a fraction of future needs, but if it avoids building just one reservoir it will be worth while. We shall soon find good agricultural land so scarce that future generations will not thank us for our shortsightedness. With a reservoir, that land is lost for ever.
Desalination is said to be expensive. So was television when it started, but sets have become cheaper as the techniques have been developed and more sets have been built. As fuel demands became greater we started on nuclear power stations—expensive though they were. Some day, I am convinced, we shall need desalination in a big way: we ought to be pressing on with the programme.
An article in the Sunday Telegraph last Sunday said that local authorities
… have been advised that because the general demand for water is gradually overtaking the supply in reservoirs and rivers they should reconsider building three desalination plants—in the North-East, South-West, and South-East. Building such plants would be far quicker than going through the long process of turning more mountain valleys into gigantic reservoirs.
British authorities have so far refrained from doing more than consider the possibilities of desalination, though British companies produce most of the distillation plant on the market.
Twenty countries now depend on desalination for the greater part of their water. Americans take 100 million gallons of sea water and turn it into drinking water each day, using more than 500 plants.
We expect a Water Resources Board report on Wales in a matter of months. Why do we not await the report before setting the wheels in motion to drown another valley?
In the course of my travels in the constituency I frequently pass the delightful home of the Minister. It is set in a beautiful valley. I do not know whether it is feasible to consider a reservoir there: we never know—someone might get the bright idea. I assure him that I shall do all I can to help him defend his home if that day comes, because the Minister is a constituent of mine, and I will do all I can for him, as I shall for the Senni people. I ask him to use all his influence now with

his colleague the Secretary of State to consider the plight of the people of Senni when they see their homes needlessly destroyed. Will he now exercise the same compassion in this matter as he would expect were it his own home that was in danger?
To sum up, I ask the Secretary of State to press the Usk River Authority to commence negotiations with the West Glamorgan Board for an extension of the Brianne Reservoir—it is not that it is unwilling to do so but only that it is waiting for someone to ask it to do so—and to conclude negotiations over the use of the Usk and Cray water. We can no longer leave it to the river authority, because it is understandable that the authority will simply seek the cheapest and easiest way out. I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will not allow himself to be completely imprisoned by legalistic and economic considerations.

11.43 p.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) has raised a subject which is certainly of very great concern to his constituency. As he says, I live in his constituency, and I am grateful to him for the remarks he has made about me personally. As an individual I am equally concerned about this problem, and have been for a number of years, not only in the period of this Government but in that of the previous Government.
As Minister of State, Welsh Office, my job this evening is, first, to commend the very excellent maiden speech which the hon. Gentleman has just made. I was sorry that it took so long for the lawyers to get through their arguments and that his speech came on rather late at night; otherwise the House would have been full to listen to what he had to say. The hon. Gentleman's speech not only sounded well, but I believe that it will read well. It showed his deep concern for a local problem, and it is always of interest to the House to hear a speech on a subject with which an hon. Gentleman is clearly conversant.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about his predecessor who enjoyed campaigns with me over a period of time and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, over


what is geographically the largest constituency in either England or Wales. We all look forward to hearing further speeches from the hon. Gentleman.
Equally as Minister of State I must tell the hon. Gentleman from the start of my speech that I can give him no news about the Senni Valley which is not known already. There is at present no proposal before my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to build a reservoir in the Senni Valley. The subject of the debate is therefore hypothetical. For me to express any views on such a project could be held to be prejudging a matter which may arise under some statutory procedure at a later date. This would be equally unfair for the promoters of any scheme and potential objectors.
Let me now get the record straight and let us understand exactly what we are discussing and what has taken place.
The Usk River Authority applied in 1968 to the then Secretary of State the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) for compulsory powers to enter on to certain land in the Senni Valley for the purpose of establishing the feasibility of the site for the construction of a reservoir. That was in 1968. On 22nd August, 1969, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West gave his assent on the clear understanding that this in no way pre-judged consideration of any proposal that might be made thereafter to build a reservoir. On 15th September, 1969, the order was made, and it came into operation on 22nd September, 1969.
I stress that since then the matter has rested with the Usk River Authority, which has the legal right to go on to this land.
I would stress that it does not lie with my right hon. and learned Friend to make an official approach to the Usk River Authority, which the hon. Gentleman asked for tonight and which we were told in yesterday's South Wales Echo the hon. Gentleman would be calling on my right hon. and learned Friend to do.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Usk River Authority was not looking for sources of water elsewhere. I will seek to put the hon. Gentleman right on this

point. The clerk of the authority said this in a Press release:
The possibility of augmenting the throughput of the existing Usk Reservoir by water abstracted from the River Towy in conjunction with the Brianne Reservoir scheme, now under construction by the West Glamorgan Water Board, is also being examined.
Clearly, the hon. Gentleman did not read that report, or he would not have raised that point in this debate.

Mr. Roderick: I said that the authority was not looking at all the alternatives. That is why I pressed my point that the authority should be looking at this most feasible alternative upon which all engineers are agreed. The authority is considering some alternatives, but I hope that the Minister will persuade the authority to look at all the alternatives, as it has an obligation to do.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The whole point of what I am saying is that it is not possible for my right hon. and learned Friend in the present legal position to make the official approach for which the hon. Gentleman asks. It is open to the hon. Gentleman himself to tell the authority of any other point which he thinks should be investigated.

Mr. Roderick: The authority will not listen.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Has the hon. Gentleman put to the authority the suggestions that he has made in the debate tonight?
My right hon. and learned Friend is in no position to do anything about this matter, as things stand. I repeat that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West made a compulsory Order on 15th September, 1969, and that remains. My right hon. and learned Friend cannot revoke it and he cannot make an official approach to the Usk River Authority in the way I have been asked to urge him to do.
By virtue of Section 4 of the Water Resources Act, 1963, it is the statutory duty of each river authority to take such action as it considers necessary for the purpose of conserving, redistributing or otherwise augmenting water resources in its area.
It is well known that the Usk River Authority, in carrying out its duties to find additional water supplies to meet the shortage to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which is soon expected


in South East Wales, is also examining other possible alternatives. The shortfall is expected to be 110 million gallons a day by the year 2001.
In the long-term, the possible alternatives will, no doubt, be laid before my right hon. and learned Friend, with the economic and social comparisons that apply to each project, and he will have to judge. That is the job of the Secretary of State of the day. It will then be for him to decide the matter, in the light of all the evidence and this would, of course, be subject to the public inquiry procedure.
While I recognise the motives which caused the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter tonight and while I sympathise with his feelings and those of his constituents on the subject, the fact remains that the legal position as it now stands makes it impossible for my right hon. and learned Friend to take the action which the hon. Gentleman wants him to take.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) on his excellent maiden speech and on raising this matter and, thereby, enabling me to intervene briefly.
While I accept what the Minister said about the Usk River Authority having a clear duty to accommodate the needs of its consumers, is he aware of the woeful lack of co-operation and co-ordination between river authorities and water boards in Wales?
We are a small country. Already a great deal of land is taken for reservoirs, national parks and the rest. Our resources are being taken from us, and it is time that we seriously considered the possibility, indeed the desirability, of having greater co-ordination.
Regarding the possibility of increasing the level of the Brianne, as an alternative to Senni, the alternative suggestions should not be left to the last moment but should be settled at the outset. May we have an assurance not only that there will be greater co-ordination in these matters but that the hon. Gentleman will examine the desirability of initiating a water development board for Wales?
Something along these lines must be done because the situation cannot be allowed to develop for much longer. The day must come when the people of Wales will say, "No more. We cannot accept any longer the drowning of our valleys, inhabited or not."

Mr. George Thomas: I rise to join the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) in offering to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) warm and sincere congratulations on his clear and cogent maiden speech. The House by long tradition takes a great interest in the maiden speakers as they come before us. My hon. Friend paid high tribute to my old friend and colleague Tudor Watkins, who served in the House as a close colleague of ours for a quarter of a century.
In congratulating my hon. Friend, may I tell the Minister that, whilst legal channels may not be open to him, when I was Secretary of State for Wales I had the warmest unofficial contacts with the river board. I remember meeting the board and having lunch with its members. The Secretary of State can find various ways of indicating the wish of my hon. Friends that at least the board should look at all possible sources. I hope that he will convey to his right hon. and learned Friend our strong feeling on the question.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: With the leave of the House, I should like to speak again.
I am interested to hear what the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) says about the matter, and what his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) has to say. There are two points that I would make. First, both the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), who opened the debate, and his hon. Friend spoke in favour of a Welsh water board. But I wonder whether either of them read an article in the Liverpool Daily Post by their right right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West on 8th September. It has been described by some as his political obituary. The headline was:
It is just nonsense to talk of a Welsh water board".


The article goes on to say a good deal about it. The right hon. Gentleman has shot down his hon. Friends.
As to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, is he honestly saying, now that he has vacated the seat of the Secretary of State, that by having a nice little unofficial lunch with the water board the matter can all be sorted out? If so, he is being less than frank with the House.

Mr. George Thomas: I did not want in any way to mislead the Minister or the House. The Minister must not get excited. What I was suggesting in a most reasonable frame of mind was that the Secretary of State should convey to the river board the opinions expressed by my hon. Friend tonight. That is not asking too much.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: If that is so, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell the House why he did not do that between 15th September, 1969, and 18th June, when his party left office.

Mr. George Thomas: I am sorry that this is becoming a duet. But the Minister of State must realise that my hon. Friend has put various new proposals before us tonight, including, although the Minister tried to twist it around, a very different proposal from the one with

which I dealt in the article to which he referred. If the Minister was honest with the House, as we expect him to be, he would acknowledge that what I was dealing with there is not at all the same as what my hon. Friends have been talking about tonight.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: For the last time I rise because I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's arguments hold a great deal of water. His views on a water board are well known, and, of course, his views on the duties of the Secretary of State should be very well known to him.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. It would be in order for the hon. Gentleman to ask the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Jones: With the leave of the House, may I say that what my hon. Friend and I were emphasising was not a water board but a development board or co-ordinating board, which is a vastly different matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve midnight.